Before the District Forum: Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B. Com., LL.B., Member
Monday the 13th day of June, 2005
C.D.No. 36/2005
Golla Pedda Subbarayudu,
S/o. Ramachandrudu,
R/o. Satanikota (V),
Nandikotkur (M),
Kurnool Dist. . . . Complainant represented by his counsel
Sri B. Nagi Reddy.
-Vs-
1. Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd,
Kurnool. . . . Opposite party No.1 represented by his counsel
2. Branch Manager, Sri V.Victor Augustine
State Bank of India,
Agrl. Development Branch,
Nandikotkur Branch,
Kurnool Dist. . . . Opposite party No.2 represented by his counsel
Sri G. Nagarjuna Reddy.
O R D E R
(As per Smt C. Preethi, Member)
1. This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite parties to pay Rs. 11,500/- with 12 % interest per annum from the date of the death of the she buffaloe, Rs. 5,000/- as costs and any such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant was sanctioned a loan by opposite party No.2 for Rs. 11,500/- to purchase a she buffaloe on 22.11.2003 and on the same day purchased a she buffaloe and insured with opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2 vide policy bearing No. 47/2004/515 and the policy commenced from 16.12.2003 to 15.12.2004. On 20.12.2003 the said she buffaloe died and post mortem was conducted and Dr T.V Ramanaiah, Veterinary Asst. Surgeon informed opposite party No.2 about the death of the she buffaloe and claim form was forwarded to opposite party No.1. But the opposite party No.1 through is communication dt 29.3.2004 repudiated the claim of the complainant informing that on scrutiny of the claim papers, it is observed that the animal died within 15 days from the commencement of risk. But the complainant submits that opposite party No.1 has not informed the above exclusion at the time of making insurance and the repudiation is against the rules of Natural Justice and amounts to deficiency of service.
3. The complainant in support of his case relied on the following Xerox documents letter dt 29.3.2004 of opposite party to the complainant, letter dt 22.12.2003 of opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.1 policy bearing No. 47/2004/515, accounts ledger extract issued by opposite party No.2 dt 29.6.2004 and postmortem certificate dt 20.12.2003 besides to the sworn affidavit of complainant in reiteration of his complaint avernments.
4. Inpursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party 1 and 2 appeared through their standing counsels and contested the case by filling separate written versions.
5. The written version of opposite party No.1 denies the allegation of the complainant made in his complaint avernments as not maintainable either in law or on facts. It admits that the she buffaloe of the complainant was insured by it under policy bearing No. 47/2004/515 on 16.12.2003 and merely after 3 days of taking the policy the said animal died on 20.12.2003. The said animal was first seen by the doctor on 19.12.2003 and the said animal died due to Distocia disease on 20.12.2003 at 10.00 A.M as per the live stock claim form. It further submits that as per the market agreement on cattle insurance the scope of which covers the death of the animals subject to exclusions. The exclusion 3 L reads “Death of the animal due to decease within 15 days from the inception of the policy “and further column No.15 clearly says 15 days waiting period. The opposite party No.1 further submits that as per cattle insurance proposal, the said policy does not cover under clause 12 which says any non-scheme claim arising due to diseases contracted within 15 days from the date of risk is not covered. A non-scheme claim means any claim arising out of the death of animal due to disease i.e purchased from funds financed by Commercial Banks or Financial Institutions but not the claims relating to the animal purchased under schemes subsidized by the Government such as DPAP etc. Hence, in the above said circumstances the opposite party No.1 rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant and seeks for the dismissal of the case with exemplary costs.
6. The written version of opposite party No.2 submits that the complaint of the complainant is filed for claiming insurance amount for the death of the buffaloe from opposite party No.1 and the complainant has not made any deficiency of service on part of opposite party No.2 and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
7. The opposite party No.1 in support of its case filed the following document Viz (1) policy bearing No. 515 issued to various beneficiaries of Satanikota (V), Nandikotkur (T), Kurnool Dist, along with cattle Insurance proposal cum policy with receipt and Veterinary Certificate, and Market Agreement on cattle insurance, besides to the sworn affidavit of opposite party No.1 in reiteration of its written version as defence and the above document is marked as Ex B.1 for its appreciation in this case. The opposite party No.2 filed its sworn affidavit in reiteration of its written version as defence and did not file any documents.
8. Hence the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties:-
9. The complainant enclosed to his complaint four documents mentioned in the list and all are unattested documents. The complainant did neither filed their originals or the attested copies of those copies to substantiate his case and got any of them marked for their appreciation. As mere existence of documents doesn’t dispence with its proof and for want of their proof by the complainant by any cogent methods they neither acquired any status of evidence nor there by any worthiness for their marking for reliance. While the opposite parties denies the truth and bonafides of the complainant’s case in its written versions. The complainant did not bother to substantiate the contention of his complaint avernents.
10. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased a she buffaloe by taking loan from opposite party No.2 and the same was insured by opposite party No.2 with opposite party No.1 under policy bearing No. 47/2004/515 and the said policy commenced from 16.12.2003 to 15.12.2004. The said she buffaloe died on 20.12.2003 and on the claim preferred by the complainant was repudiated by opposite party No.1 stating that any non scheme claim arising within 15 days from the date risk as per policy exclusions the opposite party No.1 is not liable to pay claim amount. In support of the above said contention the opposite party No.1 relied on Ex B.1 i.e policy along with condition and exclusion. On page of 2 of the Cattle Insurance proposal proforma in Ex B.1, under clause 12 says any non-scheme claim arising due to diseases contracted within 15 days from the date of risk the said policy does not cover, a non-scheme claim means any claim arising out the death of animal due to disease purchased from loan of Commercial Banks or Financial Institutions and not under Government schemes. On page one of Market Agreement on Cattle Insurance under Exclusion 3 L says death of an animal due to disease within 15 days from inception of the policy is exclude. Therefore opposite party No.1 can not be made liable for deficiency of service in repudiating the claim of the complainant. The complainant inspite of clear repudiation by opposite party No.1 failed to show by way of evidence that the she buffaloe he purchase doesn’t come under non-scheme claim.
11. To sum up of the above discussions the reasons averred by opposite party No.1 in repudiating the claim on the complainant is justified and perfectly valid as the death of the she buffaloe was excluded under claused 3 L of exclusions mentioned in the policy agreement, according to which the said insurance policy doesn’t cover the death of she buffaloe of the complainant. In view of the above, it is clear that the opposite party No.1 justifiably repudiated and rejected the claim of the complainant and there is no deficiency of service on part of the opposite party No.1 and the complainant utterly failed in substantiating his contentions. Hence the complainant is not remaining entitled to the reliefs sought.
12. In the result the complaint of the complainant is dismissed for want of merit and force.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to dictation corrected by us pronounced in the Open Court this the 13th day of June, 2005.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant For the opposite parties
-Nil- -Nil-
List of Exhibits Marked
For the complainant For the opposite parties
-Nil- -Nil-
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
