FA  266/2010  against  CC 03/2008  on the file of

the District Consumer Forum, Kurnool.

Between :

1.    IFFICO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited,

Represented by its Divisional Manager,

2^nd Floor, Uma Chambers,

Panjagutta,

Hyderabad.

   2    .IFFICO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited,

Represented by its Chief Manager,

Claims, 4^th and 5^th Floors,

IFFICO Towers, Plot No.3,

Sector 29 Gurgoan – 122001,

Haryana State.                                                  .. Appellants/ OPs 3 & 4

And

    1.     Rayankula Naidu,

S/o. Late Maddilety,

R/o. Kammavaripalli Village,

Koilakuntla Mandal,

Kurnool District.                               Respondent no.1/Complainant                                                                                                                                                                    

2. Primary Agriculture Co-Operative Society

Represented by its Secretary ,

Hanumanthugundam,

Kolimingundla Mandal,

Kurnool District.

3.            India formers,

Fertilizers Co-operative Limited,

Represented by its State Marketing Manager,

State Marketing Office,

D.No.10-5-22, Masab Tank,

Hyderabad.  … respondents 2 & 3/OPs 1 and 2                                                                                                                                                                            

Counsel for the Appellants                        :           Mr. A. Ramakrishna Reddy.

Counsel for the Respondents       :           Smt. K. Kalpana for R-1

                                                                        R2 and R3 served,.

Coram           ;          

                              Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao…      Hon’ble Member

And

                                    Sri T. Ashok Kumar                ..         Hon’ble Member

Thursday, the Sixteenth Day of February

Two Thousand Twelve

          Oral Order       :   ( As per Sri T. Ashok Kumar , Hon’ble Member )

****

       1.        This is an appeal preferred by the opposite parties 3 and 4 as against the  order dated 10.12.2008 in CC 03/2008   on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Kurnool. For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to as under :

2.            The brief facts of the complaint  are as under :

The complainant’s son, by name, Rayanakula Ramanaidu, purchased 10 bags of IFFCO Fertilizer of 10.26.26  @ Rs. 434/- per bag and 5 bags of IFFCO DAP Fertilizer @ Rs.485/- per bag on 16-09-2005 vide bill No.9 from the opposite party No.1 and it was  covered under an insurance policy styled as Kisan Grameena Bhima Yogana Policy (Sankat Haran Policy) of OPs 3 and 4  @ Rs.4,000/- per bag and for 15 bags it comes to Rs.60,000/-. The complainant’s son died on 10.01.2006 due to train accident and thereafter the complainant, who is the nominee,  made the claim with all relevant documents and also got issued legal notice but the OPs  did not settle the claim and it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and thus prayed to direct the  opposite parties to pay to him Rs.60,000/-  as insurance claim,  Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards the costs of complaint.

3.         OP. 1 filed written version admitting that the deceased purchased10 + 5 bags of fertilizers by 16.09.2005 and that the death was deceased was accidental and that OPs 2 to 4 are proper persons to settle the claim and that it has processed  the claim and submitted the claim to OPs 3 and 4 with relevant material for consideration and that  OP. 1 is not liable for the claim.

4.         The gist of written version of  OP. 2  is that it is a Multi State  Cooperative Society registered and that engaged in manufacturing and marketing Chemical fertilizers and that by paying necessary premium to OP. 4 obtained an insurance policy, viz. Kissan Grameena Yojana policy              ( Sankataharan policy) for the benefit of farmers who purchase the fertilizers covering the risk of life or permanent disability and that the settlement of the claim is the job of the OPs 3 and 4 if supported with documentary evidence such as cash memo, medical attendance certificate, post mortem report, final report, death certificate etc. and that OP. 2 has no role to pay in the said settlement of claim and that there is no deficiency in service on its part and thus prayed to dismiss the complaint as against it.

5. OP.4 filed written version disputing the claim of the complainant and denying the allegations made in the complaint where as OP. 3 adopted the same for it. The brief facts of the written version are as under:

The relationship between the complainant and deceased is not known and the death of the deceased was not accidental but suicidal one and therefore the risk is not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy.  The claim put forth by the complainant through OP. 1  is fraudulent and fabricated one. The deceased is not an agriculturist and he never worked as such but he was doing a project fellowship under Prof. B. Bhadraiah, Department of Botany, Osmania University, Hyderabad   from 1.6.2005 to 31.1.2006 and that was receiving stipend of Rs.6000/- per month and he did not apply any leave during the said period to say that he purchased fertilizers at Hanumanthugundam village and  Kolimingundla Mandal  which was at a distance of about 300 kms from his place of work and that the signature of the deceased on the alleged bill is not tallying with his signatures on official papers  and even empty bags of fertilizers were not produced before the investigator by the complainant and that  there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs 3 and 4 and that rightly the claim was repudiated on 15.2.2008 and intimated the same to the complainant by registered post and thus prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/-

6.                     The complainant, Opposite parties  1,2 and 4   filed evidence affidavits reiterating their respective pleadings  and  Ex. A-1 to A- 4  on behalf of the complainant and Ex. B1 to 7 on behalf of the opposite parties   were marked.

7.           Having considered  the material on record and heard both side counsel,  the District Forum allowed the complainant directing the Ops 3 and 4 with joint and several liability to pay to the complainant the insured amount of Rs.60,000/- ie. Rs. 4000/- per bag of fertilizer purchased along with Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony and costs of the complaint. One month time was granted for compliance from the date of receipt of the order and the case against 1 and 2 was dismissed.

8.            Feeling aggrieved with the said order OPs the 3 and 4   filed this appeal reiterating their points urged in the written version contending that the order of the District Forum is not sustainable either in law or on facts and that the claim was made illegally basing on false and fictitious documents and that the complainant who is the father of the deceased is active member in OP. 1 Society and that for wrongful gain the fertilizer purchased receipts were created and that during relevant time the deceased was doing fellowship at Osmania University under Prof. Bhadraiah on Rs.6,000/- per month stipend  and therefore question of his purchasing fertilizer on 16.09.2005 using it for agricultural purpose does not arise and thus prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.

9.         Heard the counsel for the appellant with reference to the grounds of appeal and R1/complainant argued supporting the order of the District Forum.

10. Now the point for consideration is  whether the order of the District Forum is sustainable ?

11. According to the case of the complainant, his deceased son, Rayanakula Ramanaidu, purchased 10 bags  IFFCO fertilizer of 10:26:26 @ 434 per bag and 5 bags of IFFCO DAP  fertilizers @ Rs.485/- per bag on 16.09.2005 vide Ex. A1 bill for using the said fertilizers in their agricultural land. whereas the contention of Opposite parties  3 and 4  is that  the deceased did not purchase any such fertilizers and that the said bill was manipulated by the complainant for wrongful gain with the help of OP. 1  to claim the insurance amount. The complainant did not file any documents evidencing that neither himself nor his deceased son were having agricultural lands during relevant time and that they raised such and such crop and for the said crop the said fertilizers were purchased. Therefore there is acceptable force in the contention of the OPs that the said bill was manipulated by the complainant to claim compensation. Another important aspect focused by the OPs is that purported signature of deceased Ramanaidu on Ex. A1 receipt does not tally with his signature on Ex. B5 and there is acceptable force in the contention of the OPs in the said context because the said signatures vary to each other and thus satisfied to hold that Ex. A1 fertilizer purchase bill was fabricated for wrongful gain. It is much more so when the complainant did not dispute the signature of te deceased Ex. B5.  Ex. B3 and B4 establish that during relevant time that the deceased was doing Fellowship under Prof. Bhadraiah in Osmania University and that he did not apply for leave during the crucial period more particularly on 16.09.2005 so as to believe that he went to his village Hanumanthugundam village to purchase the alleged fertilizers from OP.1 society. It is true that in Ex. B-4 it is mentioned that the deceased was selected as Project Assistant in the DBT-IMRI project for a period of 3/6 months  and he was directed to join on or before 15 the April 2004  and it does not mean that his tenure of work was for 3/6 months only. Very specifically in Ex. B6  certificate dt. 31.01.2008 it was mentioned that the deceased worked as Project Fellow under the said Professor from  1. 6.2005 to 3.1.2006 and that he did not apply for leave during the said period  and therefore no importance need to be given to he version of the complainant that during relevant period of purchasing the fertilizers  the deceased was not at all working under the said Professor. Ex. B2 Investigator’s report dt. 11.2.2007 reveals that the said investigator contacted secretary of OP 1 society and called for sales, stock and cash register for cross verification whether the deceased purchased any such fertilizers from them on cash payment but he could not produce the sale register  and that brought only stock register for verification and that the calculation figure made by him tallied with their record with regard to stock and that when he asked for the other record that is sales register and cash book the society people have shown their inability and the said aspect certainly creates cloud over the contention of the complainant that the deceased purchased such fertilizers  from OP.1.   Had such purchase was true certainly the same would have been reflected  the said record.  Since the same are not furnished adverse inference is drawn against OP. 1 and the complainant. The said report also disclosed that the investigator questioned the secretary that whether there is any credit facility to the society members and that  he replied that such credit facility is available to the society members but not to non-members and when the complainant is their member certainly he would availed the said credit facility and in such circumstances the contention of the complainant that his son paid cash and collected the fertilizers from OP 1 could not be appreciated and believed.

12. The said investigation report reveals that the complainant informed that the deceased met with a train accident at Panyam-Nandyal railway track and that when that the investigator asked him to explain happenings in details and the  purpose of traveling,  initially the complainant stated that the deceased was returning from Kurnool towards Nandyal and that near Panyam Railway station he met with train accident and died on the sport and when asked about railway ticket the complainant changed his version and said that while the deceased was crossing the railway track the train hit to him.  The inconsistent versions of the complainant in the said context also creates doubt as to the accidental death of the deceased. The said investigator’s report also discloses that the investigator along with the complainant visited the spot and observed that one can easily listen the  vigil of the train from the spot. Assigning reasons the investigator mentioned in the said report that cause of death was self killing ( suicide) and the complainant did not disprove the said aspects focused in the surveyor’s report with any convincing evidence and the self serving evidence of the complainant is not sufficient to uphold his contention that his son died accidentally. Copy of  FIR annexed to Ex. A2 claim form  reveals that  the death of the deceased was suspicious one as it was registered U/s. 174 Cr.P.C.  There is no mention in it that it is accidental death. The copy of the statement of one Ch. Ramakrishna, Dy. Station Manager, South Central Railway, annexed to the said FIR discloses that he received message that  a dead body of male person found at Km 263/1 & 2 and 263/2  & 3 in two pieces and there is no mention in it whether it is accidental or suicide. No final report is filed in the said FIR showing that the investigation revealed that it was a case of accident.   However, in Ex. B2 report of investigator it is mentioned that the railway police has established that the death as an accidental but there is no convincing evidence from the complainant that it was accidental and on the other hand his inconsistent versions before investigator goes to show that the said death was not accidental. In view of the above discussion,              OPs 3 and 4 were justified in repudiating the claim put forth by the complainant and therefore the order under Appeal are not sustainable.  Thus Appeal is liable to be allowed setting aside the impugned order.

13.       In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order under Appeal and consequently the complaint filed by the complainant stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

                                                                  MEMBER

                                                                  MEMBER

                                                                  Dt : 16.02.2012

                                                                        .