State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Pindi Surya Kumari East Godavari vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. And ... on 17 February, 2009
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD. F.A. No. 729/2006 against C.D. 36/1999, Dist. Forum, Kakinada Between: Pindi Surya Kumari W/o. Seetaramudu Komaragiri Patnam Allavaram Mandal East Godavari Dist. *** Appellant/ Complainant And 1. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Rep. by its Divisional Manager Rajahmundry. 2. The Branch Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd., D.No. 32-1-19, Main Road Mandapeta 3. The Secretary, Sri Lakshmaneswara Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Komaragiri Patnam Allavaram Mandal, E.Godavari Dist. *** Respondent/ Ops 1 to 3. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. N. V. Anantha Krishna Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. T. Ramulu (R1 & R2) Smt. N. (P). Anjanadevi. (R3). QUORUM: HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT. & SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER.
TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND NINE ORAL ORDER: (Per Honble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President.) ***
1) Appellant is unsuccessful complainant.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that after borrowing an amount of Rs. 13,200/- from R3 society she purchased two she buffaloes from Tyaga Satyanarayana to whom the society issued cheque after satisfying with the purchase made by her. R3 society had insured the buffaloes with the National Insurance Company R1 and R2 herein after collecting a premium of Rs.
693/- from her covering the period from 29.3.1996 to 28.3.1997. Subsequently on the same terms she purchased two more she-buffaloes from T. Satyanarayana and insured with the insurance company on payment of premium of Rs. 693/- covering the period from 14.10.1996 to 13.10.1997. In all she purchased four she-buffaloes for which the insurance company issued policies for an amount of Rs. 26,400/-. While so on 6.11.1996 there was an unprecedented cyclone due to which the cattle shed wherein the she-buffaloes were kept fell down on them, and the she buffaloes died. The said fact was immediately informed to the insurance company and other authorities.
The Village Administrative Officer conducted inquest, and they were buried on the directions of the Revenue authorities, in view of health hazard. When informed the same to the insurance company to settle the claim followed by registered notice they failed to settle and therefore she sought the amounts covered under the policies together with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs.
3) The insurance company resisted the case. It alleged that it was not aware that R3 had lent amount for purchase of she-buffaloes. It is the agent who issued the cover note on 16.6.1996 valid from 16.6.1996 to 15.6.1997 at the instance of R3. It is mandatory for R3 to furnish veterinary certificate and Tag numbers for issuing a policy. The second cover note was issued long after the cyclone. Immediately after cyclone in November, 1996 several claims were received. As a routine it deputed Surveyors and Loss Assessors. They conducted the investigation. They found that the claim made by the complainant was false. The complainant did not furnish any documentary evidence to prove the death of she-buffaloes due to cyclone. Therefore, it prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
4) R3 society filed counter admitting that the complainant had borrowed loan for purchase of she-buffaloes and that they were insured with insurance company. Since the complainant had failed to produce post mortem certificate and ear tags in regard to death of she-buffaloes, the insurance company has justifiably repudiated the claim, and the said fact was informed to the complainant. There was no deficiency in service on its part. Therefore it prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
5) The complainant in proof of her case filed her affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A5 marked. Refuting her evidence the respondents filed Exs. B1 to B4.
6) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainant could not produce any evidence to show that her she-buffaloes died in the cyclone which occurred on 6.11.1996, and the repudiation was just and therefore dismissed the complaint.
7) Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred this appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. It could not have insisted for ear tag etc. when the devastating cyclone had struck on 6.11.1996. It is not mandatory to submit the ear tag etc. in case of natural calamity. When the district administration got the dead carcasses of she buffaloes disposed off due to health hazards, she could not have produced it for post-mortem examination. Since panchanama was produced and in the light of admission of policy, the sum assured ought to have been granted.
8) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant had purchased four she buffaloes on the loan given by R3 society which were covered by the insurance policy evidenced under Ex. A1 (Ex. B1) cover note issued by the very insurance company covering the period from 29.3.1996 to 28.3.1997, and Ex. A2 another cover note covering the period from 14.10.1996 to 13.10.1997. She alleges that the cattle died in the cyclone and filed Ex. A3 certificate from Village Administrative Officer.
9) Obviously, in order to evade the just claim, though not pleaded in its counter it has introduced Exs. B4 & B4 office copy of cover notes, alleging the cattle which were covered by insurance policy were different from the cattle died in the cyclone. In other words, the insurance company intended to plead that a false claim was made by the complainant. At the outset, we may state that this was introduced belatedly to deny the just claim of a poor illiterate villager. They were maintained by the insurance company. It is not known how the entries therein could be different from that of Exs. B1 & A1. A perusal of Ex. B3 cover not bearing No. 073562 shows that it was Dt. 16.6.1996 issued covering the period from 16.6.1996 to 15.6.1997. It was for Tag No. 4840. The period is from 16.6.1996 to 15.6.1997 different from Ex. B1. Even assuming the same is true it was valid at the time when the cyclone took place on 6.11.1996. Ex. B4 is xerox copy of another insurance policy, which the insurance company intends to tag on to the complainant. It is for 7 animals. The Tag Nos being 4641 to 4647 cover the period from 30.12.1996 to 29.12.1997. The name of the complainant was not mentioned on the policy. However, a list was enclosed mentioning the name of the complainant at. S.No. 3 mentioning the Tag Nos. 4645 & 4646.
This is altogether different from Ex. B1 filed by them as well as Ex. A1 issued by them.
These discrepancies were not explained by the insurance company which admittedly had issued the policies Exs. A1 & A2. Since the entries in Ex. B3 are contrary to Ex. A1 and A2 (B1), we have no hesitation to hold that they do not relate to the cattle of the complainant, and they do not relate to the claim made by the complainant.
10) The insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that Post Mortem Certificate of the Veterinary Surgeon besides death of those cattle in the cyclone was not established. The Tag Nos. had not been furnished. But the very insurance company admits that there was devastating cyclone on 6. 11. 1996. In fact the very insurance company requested the R3 society to send xerox copies of cover notes issued by them pertaining to complainant.
Since the cyclone devastation was huge probably the District administration intended that these cattle be cremated or burnt in view of health hazards. The certificate Ex. A3 issued by the Village Administrative Officer confirms the loss. No contrary evidence was placed. No efforts were made to cross verify the genuineness of Ex. A3 though the insurance company was having investigators to check them. The complainant asserts in her complaint that an investigator was also appointed, who had taken photos, received documents but did not settle the claim. The said fact was not controverted by filing affidavit of any of the officers or investigator of the insurance company. The insurance company cannot treat all cases under the same category in the sense that when such a huge and devastating cyclone had occurred usual practice of submitting a certificate or tags from Veterinary doctors would not be possible.
The insurance company itself admits in its counter The investigation conducted by the opposite party reveals that the death of the cattle belonging to the complainant is not proved nor based on any viable and reliable evidence, that the Animal Husbandry authorities have made extensive surveys of all the cyclone affected villages in the district and the records maintained by them does not disclose the loss of cattle/live stock, that during the visit of the investigator the complainant did not furnish any documentary evidence to establish the death of the animals and that the complainant did not furnish the death certificate issued by the concerned Veterinary Officers.
11) The insurance company did not file the said report of the investigators or veterinary doctors of Animal Husbandry department in order to prove that the cattle belonging to the complainant was not made a mention in it. Necessarily an adverse inference has to be drawn for non-filing of these important documents. They were with-held for the obvious reasons. Had it been filed it could reveal that the complainant had lost the cattle in the cyclone. After all the cattle was insured for an amount of Rs. 26,400/-. Having collected the premia from R3 which lent the amount confirmed the case of the complainant viz., borrowing of amount by the complainant, purchase of cattle by her etc., she could not have invented the cause that her cattle died in cyclone. More so, when cyclone was admitted.
In the circumstances, we hold that the complainant has lost her cattle in the cyclone and therefore entitled to the amount covered under the cover notes. The Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. The appeal is liable to be allowed.
12) In the result the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the complaint is allowed directing the insurance company R1 & R2 herein to pay Rs. 26,400/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of repudiation i.e., 10.2.1997 till the date of realization with costs computed at Rs. 2,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks. The case against R3 is dismissed, however, without costs.
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER Dt. 17. 02. 2009.