Date of Filing ::19-08-2011
Date of Disposal ::30-07-2015
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM::ONGOLE
Thursday, this the 30th day of July, 2015
PRESENT: Sri P.V. Krishna Murthy, B.A.,B.L., President
Sri K. UMAMAHESWARA RAO, M.A.,B.L., Member
C.C.No.133/2011
Damalapati Venkata Seshaiah,
son of Venkaiah,
aged about 42 years,
Hindu, cultivation,
Door No.4-9-2010,
resident of Karavadi village,
Ongole, Prakasam District. … Complainant
Vs.
1) The Tobacco Board,
represented by Auction Superintendent,
Plat form no.23,
Ongole-II, Prakasam District.
2) Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Company
Limited, represented by its Branch Manager,
G.N.R. Complex, Opp: to Rajamathadevi Towers,
Santhapet, Ongole, Prakasam District. … Opposite Parties
This complaint coming on 14-07-2015 before us for hearing in the presence of Sri G. Narasimha Rao, advocate for complainant and Sri D. Srinivasulu Reddy, advocate for first opposite party and Sri Kareti Srinivasulu, advocate for second opposite party and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:
ORDER
(ORDER BY Sri P.V. KRISHNA MURTHY, PRESIDENT)
1. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:
The complainant is a tobacco grower. The tobacco of the complainant suffered loss in May, 2010, due to the Liala cyclone. The stock of tobacco was insured with the second opposite party. The tobacco barn of the complainant was also damaged. The opposite parties have not settled the claim in spite of reminders. Hence, the complaint for payment of Rs.2,50,000/- with compensation and costs.
2. The brief averments of the counter of first opposite party are as follows:
The complaint is not maintainable. The allegations made in the complaint are not correct. It is fact that crops were damaged in the month of May, 2010, due to the cyclone and the tobacco barn of the complainant was also damaged. The opposite party is only a facilitator and has nothing to do with the activities of the second opposite party. The second opposite party has to settle the claim. There is no privity of contract. The complainant is not a consumer. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed.
3. The brief averments of the counter of second opposite party are as follows:
The complainant informed the damage to his stock in Liala cyclone. This opposite party appointed an independent surveyor, who inspected the premises and assessed the loss at Rs.12,368/- after deducting policy excess and salvage. The barn of the complainant was not damaged. As per the terms of the contract, the complainant is not entitled to any amount in excess of Rs.5,000/- on each and every claim. The opposite party sent a cheque after deducting premium to the complainant, to the tobacco board. Hence, there is no deficiency of service. As there is no deficiency of service, the complaint is not maintainable. The complaint is filed with false allegations. The opposite party is not liable to the reliefs. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed.
4. Now the point for consideration is “Whether the opposite parties committed a deficiency of service?”
5. The complainant filed his chief affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A3. On behalf of the first opposite party the junior legal executive and independent surveyor filed their affidavits as R.W.1 and R.W.2. Exs.B1 to B6 were marked for the opposite parties.
6. POINT:- The affidavits of the parties are more or less in accordance with their stand in this case. The written arguments filed also reflect the respective contentions of the parties in the case. They are repetitive of the averments of the counter mostly. As such, the contentions of the parties are being dealt with in essence. Each and every contention found in the written arguments, is not being dealt with separately.
7. The complainant insured his stock with the second opposite party. The complainant filed this case against the officer of the tobacco board and the insurance company. The first opposite party contended that it has nothing to do with the insurance claim and that it is between the complainant and his insurer, i.e., the second opposite party. The above contention is relevant. The complainant has no claim against the first opposite party. His grievance is that the insurance company has not paid the money even after damage. Therefore, the first opposite party is not a necessary party to this proceeding. The claim in this complaint can be decided even in the absence of the first opposite party. As such, the complaint is dismissed against the first opposite party, without costs.
8. The second opposite party contended that it processed the claim as per the report of the surveyor and that it has not committed any deficiency of service. The opposite party also filed the affidavit of surveyor (R.W.2). The report of the surveyor is marked as Ex.B2. Under Ex.B2, the surveyor arrived at the net loss at Rs.12,368/-. The complainant passed a receipt under the original of Ex.B6, to the effect that, he admitted the entire settlement of the claim as Rs.9,926/-. He also undertook in the receipt that with the passing of the receipt entire claim is deemed to have been settled. Hence, the complainant received money from the insurer to some extent. However, the complainant has not dealt with the said fact, in his complaint. The complainant suppressed the fact that the second opposite party paid him some money and that both of them settled the matter on such payment. The complainant suppressed the material fact, which was within his knowledge.
9. Non-settlement of the claim by the insurer is deficiency of service. However, settlement of the same is not a deficiency of service. The complainant received money and agreed to settle the matter in full with the second opposite party. The complainant suppressed this fact and filed this case attributing deficiency of service. The conduct of the complainant is not fair and legal. Since the claim was already settled, there is no deficiency of service. No consumer dispute arises for adjudication of this Forum between the complainant and the opposite parties. The point is held against the complainant.
10. In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him and corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 30th day of July, 2015.
Sd/-xxxx Sd/-xxxxx
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:
P.W.1 28-12-2011 Damalapati Venkata Seshaiah, son of
Venkaiah, aged about 42 years, Hindu, cultivation,Door No.4-9-2010,
resident of Karavadi village,Ongole, Prakasam District.
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR FIRST OPPOSITE PARTIES:
R.W.1 30-01-2012 G. Chandra Sekhar, son of late Rama Rao,
Hindu, aged 34 years, working as Junior Legal Executive, M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Vijayawada, now present at Guntur.
R.W.2 30-01-2012 Gorantla Chenchaiah, son of Pedda Veeraiah,
Hindu, aged 58 years, independent surveyor-cum-loss assessor, R/o D.No.37-1-406 (46/A), II lane, Bhagyanagar, Ongole.
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 Photocopy of tobacco grower’s pass book of
complainant.
Ex.A2 01-08-2011 Office copy of legal notice.
Ex.A3 Two postal receipts and two postal
acknowledgements.
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR FIRST OPPOISTE PARTES:
Ex.B1 Copy of Policy Schedule with terms and
conditions.
Ex.B2 18-07-2010 Copy of final survey report and photograph of
tobacco.
Ex.B3 Photostat copy of 2009-Andhra Pradesh
Auctions-Platform wise information.
Ex.B4 Photostat copy of 2010-Andhra Pradesh
Auctions-Platform wise information.
Ex.B5 11-05-2012 Memo filed by the complainant for rs.12,368/-
Ex.B6 Photocopy of receipt for Rs.9,926/-.
Sd/-xxx
PRESIDENT
Copies to:
1) The complainant.
2) The first opposite party.
3) The second opposite party.
Free copy was issued in dis.no. /date:
//True copy//
