IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance Co.Ltd. V/S Smt.Basamma - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

DCFR 10/08

Smt.Basamma - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

R.Basavaraj

31 Jan 2009

ORDER

DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DC Office Compound, Sath Kacheri
consumer case(CC) No. DCFR 10/08

Smt.Basamma						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance Co.Ltd.. The Managing Director, Raitara Seva IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance Co.Ltd.						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

JUDGEMENT By Sri. N.H. Savalagi, President. This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant- Smt. Basamma against three Respondents- (1) Branch Manager, IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance Company Ltd., Hariyana (2) Branch Manager, IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance Company Ltd., New Delhi, and (3) Managing Director, Raitara Seva Sahakara Bank Ltd., Hirekotnekal, Tq. Manvi, Dist: Raichur. The brief facts of the complaint are as under: The complainant is the legally wedded wife of late Amaregouda S/o. Chandrashekhargouda, who was having SANKATA HARANA VIMA YOJANE POLICY during his life-time with the Respondents. The said policy was issued with the fertilizer bags of the Respondent No- 1 & 2. Respondent No-1 is the Corporate office, Respondent No-2 is the Registered office & Head office of IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance Company Ltd., and Respondent No-3 is the a Raithara Seva Sahakara Bank Ltd.,. The complainants husband was member of the Respondent No-3, wherein the fertilizers were sold and said policy was issued along with the fertilizers bag. On 31-03-06 the complainants husband Amaregegouda as member of Respondent No-3 has purchased (5) Tonnes of 10/26/26/100 bags of fertilizers and (5) tones of Urea. The complainants husband being the member of Respondent No-3 Bank was having Account NO. 2046 since from 23-03-1998. As per the terms of Sankata Harana Vima Scheme Policy, if any member purchases fertilizers/urea worth more than 25 bags is eligible to get the said Vima Yojana and after the purchase if the purchaser dies his/her successors of the family holder are eligible to avail the benefit of Rs. One Lakh from Respondents and the said policy was issued to Respondent No- 1 & 2 through Respondent No-3. The complainants husband Amaregouda died on 14-06-06, as such the complainant is entitled to claim the said Vima Yojana Policy. After the death of her husband, the complainant approached and requested the Respondent No-3 to release Rs. One Lakh towards the policy along with copy of FIR, PME, Death Certificate etc., After receiving the application from the complainant the Respondent No-3 orally told that they have forwarded her claim form to the Respondent No-1 & 2 and concerned authorities. But on 16-07-07 complainant received a letter by RPAD from the Respondents stating repudiation of her claim due to difference of signatures and it is not proved that deceased has actually purchased the fertilizers, as the signature on cash memo bill do not tally with loan record etc., Due to over-sight and lack of knowledge complainants husband might have signed in casual or different manner. But the person is one and the same who purchased the fertilizer bags and who is having account and was member of Respondent No-3. For the said reasons the Respondents cannot escape from their payment of Rs. One Lakh under Vima Yojana Policy. The claim & other better particulars of the deceased Amaregouda are all available with the photo with the Respondent No-3. To verify and confirm the true facts is the bounded duty of Respondent No- 1 & 2, who has issued the policy to the Respondent No-3 to allot the policy on purchase of stipulated number of bags of fertilizers. The genuineness of purchase, Account Number, Membership Number, are all available with Respondent No-3. So the Respondents cannot escape from their bounded duty and repudiate the claim of the complainant. This act of Respondents clearly shows deficiency of their service. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for direction to the Respondent No- 1 to 3 to pay Rs. One Lakh towards claim of Sankata Harana Vima Yojana Scheme with compensation and exemplary cost. 2. In- Pursuance of service of notice Respondent No 1 & 2 appeared through Sri. M.Nagaraj Advocate and has filed his written version. Respondent No-3 who was set ex-parte initially, subsequently appeared through Sri. M.Veerupaxigouda Advocate, and this Ex-parte order was set-aside and filed a separate written version. In the written version the Respondent No- 1 & 2 have contended that the averments that late Amaregouda having a Sankata Harana Policy issued with fertilizer bags and he had purchased (5) tones of 10/26/26/100 bags of fertilizers and 100 bags of (5) tones of urea being member of Respondent No-3 Bank etc., are not with in the knowledge of these Respondents. The averments that the complainant is the wife of Amaregouda who died on 14-06-06 and hence he is entitled to claim benefit of Rs. One Lakh under the Sankata Harana Vima Yojana Policy are not true and correct. These Respondents after the receipt of claim form verified thoroughly about the genuineness of the claim and the documents submitted by the complainant with Respondent No-3. It is found that in the insured bills there is a variation of shade of blue ink and pen pressure in writing the name of the insured and the nominee and the rest of the contents of the bill are probably indicate that the name of Amaregouda might have been inserted after his death in-order to claim the benefit. The name of nominee is no where mentioned in such policy. It is further observed that (5) previous bills and (5) later bills to that insured bills are not in-order. It is also observed that vendor (Respondent No-3) has not maintained the Stock Book of fertilizer. It is pertinent to note that the insured held only 5.31 acres of land therefore purchase of huge bags of fertilizers is un-imaginably high in the light of his land holding. Therefore Respondent No- 1 & 2 intimated the complainant through letter dt. 16-07-08 that it is not proved that the deceased has actually purchased fertilizers and the signatures on cash memo bill do not tally with loan records and it is not fulfilling the terms & conditions of Sankata Harana Vima Yojna Scheme. Hence file is closed as No Claims. In-view of creation of records over writings it is very difficult to prove the genuineness of the documents, because always insurance will be covered on utmost good faith. Hence for all these reasons the Respondents No- 1 & 2 have sought for dismissal of the complaint. 3. The Respondent No-3 has filed his written version contending that the contents of Para-3 of complaint regarding purchase of fertilizers i.e, (5) tones of 10/26/26 (100 bags) and (5) tones of urea by deceased Amaregouda is true and correct. It is true that deceased Amaregouda was having benefit of Sankata Harana Vima Yojana Policy. As per the said policy, the person who purchased the fertilizers and if dies and disabled, the legal heir of purchaser are entitled for receiving compensation upto maximum of Rs. One Lakh. Per bag of 50 Kg the insured amount is Rs. 4,000/-, but if a person purchases more than 25 bags, the maximum amount is to be paid Rs. One Lakh. It is true that deceased Amaregouda has purchased 200 bags of fertilizers through (Respondent No-3) Raitara Seva Sahakar Sangha. After the death of Amaregouda, his legal heir Basamma had brought to the knowledge of this Respondent by filing an application along with documents such as FIR with complaint, PME Report fertilizer purchase bills. After the receipt of the same, this Respondent forwarded to the Respondent No-1 & 2 with the claim forms. Complainant-Basamma who is legally wedded wife of deceased Amaregouda. The deceased Amaregouda was having account with this Respondent Bank who purchases fertilizers through Bank. He purchased 200 bags of fertilizers. The deceased Amaregouda was having Kisan Sahakara Credit Loan with the Bank. In the fertilizer bill and in the Kisan Sahakara Credit loan form the signature are different. But as per this Respondents knowledge both signatures belong to the deceased Amaregouda only and they are one and the same. But every purchaser is not having loan account or form with our Bank. The deceased had purchased 200 bags of fertilizers and his legal heirs are entitled to get benefit as per Sankata Harana Vima Yojana Policy. Hence for all these reasons Respondent No-3 has submitted that if complainant is entitled to receive compensation then liability may be fixed on Respondent No-1 & 2 and the complaint be dismissed against him. 4. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed her sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief reiterating the contents of her complaint. In-rebuttal on behalf of Respondent No- 1 & 2 the sworn-affidavit of one Sanjaya Seth, Head of the Claims has been filed by way of examination-in-chief as RW-1 reiterating the contents of written version and Respondent No-3 has filed his sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief as RW-2 reiterating the contents of his written version. On behalf of the complainant (16) documents have been got marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-16. On behalf of Respondent No-1 & 2 (9) documents have been got marked as Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-9. Respondent No-3 has not produced any document to be marked. 5. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1.Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service in not settling her claim of Sankata Harana Vima Yojana Policy Scheme, as alleged. 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for. 6. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. In the Negative. 2. As per final order for the following REASONS POINT NO.1:- 7. It is the case of the complainant that her husband late Amaregouda S/o. Chandrashekhargouda being the member of Respondent No-3 was issued with Sankata Harana Vima Policy by Respondent No-1 & 2 through Respondent No-3 for having purchased (5) tones (100 bags) of 10/26/26/ of fertilizers of (5) tones (100 bags) of urea from Respondent No-3. As per the terms of Sankata Harana Vima Scheme, if any member purchases fertilizers/urea worth more than 25 bags is eligible to get said Vima Yojana and if the purchaser dies, his/her successors of the family-holder are eligible to avail the benefit of Rs. One Lakh from the Respondents. It is also her case that her husband died on 14-06-06 and she being the wife of late Amaregouda is entitled to get the policy amount but the Respondents have repudiated her claim. Hence the complaint. She has reiterated the same in her affidavit-evidence. 8. To substantiate the same the complainant has produced in all (16) documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-16. Out of which Ex.P-8 is the Xerox copy of certificate dt. 25-10-07 issued by Respondent No-3 Raitha Seva Sahakar Bank, Niyamitha Hirekotnekal, certifying that Sri. Amaregouda S/o. Chandrashekhargouda R/o. Karab Dinni being member had purchased (5) tones of urea and (5) tones of fertilizers 10/26/26 of IFFCO TOKYO Company Ltd., on 31-03-06 under bill Nos. 2217 & 2218. Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 are the two bills bearing No. 2217 & 2218 dt. 31-03-06. Ex.P-11 is the Kissan Credit Loan Agreement Cum Promissory Note executed by Amaregouda in favour of Respondent No-3 Bank on 25-10-05 for loan of Rs. 5,000/-. Ex.P-5 is the claim form. Ex.P-3 is the Death Certificate of Amaregouda issued by Rajiv Gandhi Super Specialty Hospital Raichur. Ex.P-4 is the PME Report conducted on the dead body of Amaregouda. Ex.P-2 is the FIR and Ex.P-1 is the Repudiation Letter dt. 16-07-07 issued by Respondent No- 1 & 2 addressed to the complainant. Ex.P-12 is the copy of PUC Certificate in-respect of Amaregouda, Ex.P-13 is the SSLC Certificate in-respect of Amaregouda. Ex.P-14 is the Copy of Application Form for Primary School Teachers in-respect of Amaregouda, Ex.P-15 is the Membership Entry Book of Raith Seva Sahakar Sangha Ltd., in-respect of Amaregouda. Ex.P-16 is the Employment Registration of Certificate in-respect of Amaregouda. 9. The Respondents 1 & 2 have denied the purchase of (5) tones of urea and (5) tones of fertilizers by late Amaregouda and the cash bills No. 2217 & 2218 are not genuine as the signature of late Amaregouda on these bills do not tally with the signatures on his loan records. On receipt of claim form the Respondents verified thoroughly about the genuineness of the claim and it is found that in the insured bills there is a variation of shade of blue ink and pen pressure in-writing the name of the insured and the nominee and the rest of the contents of the bills are probably indicate that the name of Amaregouda might have been inserted after his death in-order to claim the benefit. The name of nominee is no where mentioned in such bills. It is also contended that (5) previous bills and (5) later bills to the disputed bills are not in-order. Further the late Amaregouda held only 5.31 guntas of land therefore purchase of huge bags of fertilizers is un-imaginably high in the light of his land holding. So they have intimated the complainant through letter dt. 16-07-07 that it is not proved that the deceased has actually purchased fertilizers as the signatures on cash memo bill do not tally with loan records and it is not fulfilling the terms & conditions of Sankata Harana Vima Yojana Scheme. The Respondent No-3 has filed written version supporting the claim of the complaint against Respondent No- 1 & 2. 10. The Respondent No- 1 & 2 have filed (9) documents at Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-9. Out of which Ex.R-1 is the copy of Insurance Police; Ex.R-2 is the Form of Declaration executed by late Amaregouda with Respondent No-3; Ex.R-3 is the Report of Investigation conducted by Respondent No- 1 & 2; Ex.R-5 (1 to 24) are the cash bills bearing No. 2201 to 2226 out of which Ex.R-5 (16 & 17) are the bills bearing No. 2217 & 2218 dt. 31-03-06 showing the purchase of urea of fertilizers by late Amaregouda from Respondent No-3 Sangha. Ex.R-6 is the copy of General Ledger and Ex.R-7 is the copy of Cash Book of Respondent No-3 maintained during the course of its business; Ex.R-8 is the copy of Repudiation Letter dt. 16-07-07 issued by Respondent No-1 & 2 to the complainant; Ex.R-9 & Ex.R-9(1) are the Xerox copy of cash bill bearing No. 2217 & 2218 dt. 31-03-06. It is pertinent to note here that during the course of arguments the LC for the Respondent No- 1 & 2 filed the original bills of Ex.R-9 & Ex.R-9(1) bearing No. 2217 & 2218 dt. 31-03-06 and submitted for comparising the signature of late Amaregouda on these two disputed bills with admitted signature of late Amaregouda on Form of Declaration at Ex.R-2. So for the sake of convenience, the two original bills of Ex.R-9 and Ex.R-9(1) are now marked as Ex.R-9(A) and Ex.R-9(1A). 11. The copy of Insurance Policy at Ex.R-1 issued by Respondent no- 1 & 2 (IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance Limited) shows that they have issued this policy under the scheme Sankata Harana Kissan Gramina Vima Yojana. It interalia states that this policy is evidence of contract and the proposal form along with any written statement, sale declarations from month to month for the purpose of this Policy Forms Part of Contract. The eligibility of the insured person his/her nominee/legal heir as the case may be to avail of the benefits of the cover under the policy is dependent on the truth of the information given in the serially numbered printed cash receipts or debit notes. Para-6 under sub-heading Evidence of cover, states as under:- Evidence of cover: The serially numbered printed cash Receipt or the Debit Note (when Fertilizer is purchased against Credit) issued only by Farmers Service Centers of IFFCO or Co-operative Societies shall be the sole evidence of insurance. No other document or certificate shall be issued by ITGI. The serially numbered printed Cash Receipt or Debit Memo is not negotiable and the person whose name appears in this document shall be deemed to be the insured person. However the serially numbered printed cash receipt or debit note to be valid must contain the following information: i. Name of the buyer; ii. Buyers Fatherhusband name; iii. Full Postal Address of buyer; iv. Date of issue of the bill; v. Quantity with brand of fertilizer; vi. Name of nominee; and vii. Signature/Thumb impression of buyer. 12. From a plain reading of Para-6 of this policy which is in the shape of terms & conditions, it manifest that every purchaser of the products of Respondent No- 1 & 2 Company has to put his signature on the Cash Receipts or Debit Note issued by Farmers Service Center of IFFCO or Co-operative Societies and this Cash Receipts or Debit Note shall be the sole evidence of insurance of the person who purchase the fertilizers of Respondent No- 1 & 2 Company. The Farmer Service Center of IFFCO or the Co-operative Societies shall mention the Name of Buyer his Fathers name or husband name; Full Postal Address; Date of issue of the bill the quantity with brand of fertilizers and name of the nominee. The purchaser to put his signature or thumb impression on the cash receipt or debit note. 13. In this case the complainant has contended that her husband late Amaregouda had purchased (5) tones of urea and (5) tones of fertilizers of Respondent No- 1 & 2 product from Respondent No-3 who issued receipt and on which late Amareguda has put his signature and the complainant has produced the Xerox copy of the same at Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 bearing No. 2217 & 2218 dt. 31-03-06. The Respondents 1 & 2 as stated supra in the first instance had filed copies of the said bills marked at Ex.R-9 & Ex.R-9(1) and during the arguments, of their LC has produced the original of Ex.R-9 & Ex. R-9(1) which have been marked as Ex.R-9(A) & Ex.R-9(1A). So to say it is the specific case of the complainant that her husband late Amaregouda had put his signature on receipt at Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 = Ex.R-9 & Ex.R-9(1), the original of which are at Ex.R-9(A) & Ex.R-9(1A). So it can be said that the purchaser late Amaregouda has put his signature on cash memo by complying with the terms of the policy stated at clause vii of Para- 6 of policy at Ex.R-1. 14. The Respondents 1 & 2 have contended that the signature of late Amaregouda put on the cash memo bearing No. 2217 & 2218 dt. 31-03-06 vide Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 = Ex.R-9 & Ex.R-9(1) the original of which at Ex.R-9 (A) & Ex.R-9(1A), do not tally with his admitted signature of late Amaregouda on the declaration form at Ex.R-2. As discussed above Ex.P-11 produced by complainant is Agreement letter executed by the late Amaregouda for loan under Kisan Credit and obtained from Respondent No-3 Bank. In this agreement letter, we find signatures of late Amaregouda on Page- 1 & 2 of this document at Ex.P-11. These signatures on Ex.P-11 and the signature on Ex.R-2 Form of Declaration are the one and same. So the signature of late Amaregouda on Ex.P-11 the agreement letter and his signature on the declaration form at Ex.R-2 are the admitted signatures of late Amaregouda. Now let us verify the signature of late Amaregouda on the purchase Receipt bearing bills No. 2217 & 2218 produced by the complainant at Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 = Ex.R-9 & Ex.R-9(1) and the original of which produced at Ex. R-9(A) & Ex.R-9(1A). From a comparison of the signatures of late Amaregouda on these two cash bills bearing No. 2217 & 2218 at Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 the original of which produced at Ex. R-9(A) & Ex.R-9(1A) with the admitted signature of late Amaregouda on Ex.P-11 the agreement letter and Ex.R-2 Declaration Form, it amply shows difference and non-resemblance of disputed signatures with the admitted signatures and they do not tally with respect to the mode & style and the alphabets used by the signatory. Hence it can be said without hesitation that the signatures on the two cash bills bearing No. 2217 & 2218 at Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 = Ex.R-9(1) & Ex.R-9 (1A) the original of which at Ex.R-9(1) & Ex.R-9(1A) do not tally with the admitted signatures of late Amaregouda on the Loan Agreement at Ex.P-11 and Declaration Form at Ex.R-2. 15. Drawing our attention on the signatures of late Amaregouda on the copy of PUC Certificate, Copy of SSLC Certificate, Copy of Application Form for Primary School Teacher Post, Copy of Membership Entry Book of Raitha Sevan Sahakar Sangha Ltd., and Employment Registration Certificate vide Ex.P-12 to Ex.P-16, the LC for the complainant argued that generally the signatures of a person differs from one to another in the mode and style and also in language. He further submitted that late Amaregouda in his SSLC Certificate, PUC Certificate, Application Form for the Primary School Teacher Post & Employment Registration Certificate has signed in Kannada Language as Amageouda whereas in Membership Entry Book of Raitha Seva Sahakar Sangha Ltd., he has signed in English Language as Amaregouda so it shows that late Amaregouda has no specimen signatures and he used to sign in different ways and in different language. So the signatures on the Cash bills at Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 the original of which at Ex.R-9(A) & Ex.R-9(1A) are of late Amaregouda only. Hence merely because they differ it cannot be said that they are not the signatures of late Amaregouda. 16. Admittedly the signatures of late Amaregouda on (Copy) of SSLC Certificate at Ex.P-13, PUC Certificate at Ex.P-12, Application Form for Primary School Teacher Post at Ex.P-14 & Employment Registration Certificate at Ex.P-16 are in Kannada Language whereas Membership Entry Book of Raith Seva Sahakar Sangha Ltd., at Ex.P-15 his signatures is in English in the shape of writings of his name as Amaregouda. As discussed above the admitted signatures of late Amaregouda on the Loan Agreement at Ex.P-11 & Declaration Form at Ex.R-2 are in English Language in the shape of signature as A.C. Patil, but the disputed signatures on the cash bills at Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 the original of which at Ex.R-9(A) & Ex.R-9(1A) though are in English Langage but they are in the shape of writing of his name as Amaregouda. Even these disputed signatures on the two cash bills do not tally with English signature on Membership Entry Book at Ex.P-15. So it follows that as a student, late Amaregouda might have put his signature in Kannada Language as seen in his SSLC, PUC & Employment Registration Certificates during the period between 1990 to 1997 but his signatures on Loan Agreement at Ex.P-11 & Declaration Form at Ex.R-2 (in the year 2005) are made in English Language in the shape of signature as A.C. Patil whereas the disputed signatures on the two cash bills dt. 31-03-06 at Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 the original of which at Ex.R-9(A) & Ex.R-9(1A) which are made in English Language are subsequent to the admitted signatures at Ex.P-11 & Ex.R-2 in the year 2005. As discussed above the disputed signatures on the two cash bills at Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 = Ex.R-9(A) & Ex.R-9(1A) differs altogether from the admitted signatures at Ex.P-11 & Ex.R-2. Hence it follows that the cash bills at Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7, the original of which at Ex.R-9(A) & Ex.R-9(1A) are not belonging to late Amaregouda. Further the complainant has not averred in her complaint or by way of re-joinder or has not produced any piece of evidence to show that late Amaregouda also used to put his signature like the signatures on the cash bill at Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 = Ex.R-9(1) & Ex.R-9(1A). In the absence of the same we are not in agreement with the arguments advanced by the LC for the complainant and hence we find substance in the contention of the Respondent No- 1 & 2 that the cash bill at Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 are not genuine receipts as they do not tally the signatures of late Amaregouda with his admitted signature at Ex.P-11 = Ex.R-2. 17. Nextly it is argued by the LC for the Respondent No- 1 & 2 that late Amaregouda was having a total extent of 5 acres 31 guntas of agriculture land as reported by Investigation Agency of Respondent No- 1 & 2 vide Ex.R-3. so it creates a doubt as to whether the late Amreguda had purchased a huge quantity like 5 tonnes of urea and 5 tonnes of complex Fertilizers vide the two cash bills. The Respondents in Para-5 of their written version among other things have stated that when the insured (Amaregouda) held only 5.31 acres of land so the purchase of huge bags of fertilizers is unimaginably high in the light of his land holdings. 18. The Respondents have produced Investigation Report at Ex.R-3. A close perusal of this Ex.R-3 goes to show that one Shambhu Alagundigi the Foreignsick Science Expert & Investigation Consultant has investigated regarding the stock register and the Receipt books of Ex.R-3 Raitha Seva Sahakar Sangha regarding purchase of 5 tones of complex fertilizers and 5 tonnes of Urea of Respondent products by late Amaregouda from vendor Respondent No-3 and he has also investigated the lands held by insured. His report interalia shows that the signature of the insured (Amaregouda) on the insured bills do not tally with his signatures on Membership Register and Loan Ledger. It also shows that as per the information furnished by vendor (Respondent N-3) the insured (late Amaregouda) held 5.31 acres of land so 200 bags of fertilizers is unimaginably high in his land holdings. 19. Admittedly the Respondent No- 1 & 2 in Para-5 of their written version have strongly contended that the signature of late Amaregouda on the cash bills do not tally with his admitted signatures and that late Amaregouda was holding 5.31 acres of land and thereby the alleged purchase of 5 tonnes of complex fertilizers and 5 tonnes of urea was unimaginably high. As discussed above the complainant has failed to prove that the signature on the cash bills are that of her late husband Amaregouda for purchase of 5 tonnes of (200 bags) of urea and (200 bags) of complex fertilizers. Further the complainant in her complaint has not whispered a single word about a total extent on the land held by late Amaregouda. Even the complaint do not whisper about land, survey number, and extent of land held by late Amaregouda. Added to this the complainant has not produced any Record of Rights of land to show the extent of land held by late Amaregouda. Under these circumstances the contention of Respondents based on their Investigation done by them Investigation Agency vide Ex.R-3 that late Amaregouda was holding 5 acres 31 guntas of land as stated by Respondent No-3 has to be accepted. Hence, when the signatures on the two cash bills showing the purchase of huge quantity of fertilizers and urea said to have been purchased by late Amaregouda is disputed by the Respondent No- 1 & 2 and when the Respondents have contended that late Amaregouda was having only a meager extent of land holdings, then it was incumbent on the complainant to rebut the contention of the Respondents by producing substantive piece of evidence. Of course, the complainant as discussed above, has produced Ex.P-12 to Ex.P-16 showing the signatures of late Amaregouda but she has not produced Record of Rights or any piece of paper regarding the extent of land held by her husband. In the absence of the same it is a circumstance to hold that purchase of 5 tonnes of urea and complex fertilizers under two cash bills is unimaginably high for 5 acres 31 guntas of land held by late Amaregouda. 20. Admittedly as per the terms & conditions of the policy the signature of the purchaser of the fertilizers & urea of Respondent No- 1 & 2 Company is a must and the receipts of such purchase shall be treated as Insured Receipt for the purposes of claiming insurance. In this case since the receipts are not genuine Receipts as the signature of late Amaregouda on his Receipts do not tally with his admitted signatures. So the cash receipts bearing No. 2217 & 2218 at Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 cannot be termed as insured Receipts so as to claim the insurance as laid down in the policy. If this is so it follows that Respondent No- 1 & 2 have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant by informing them vide letter at Ex.P-1 = Ex.R-8. Hence we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents in not settling claim of the complainant and therefore Point No- 1 is answered in the negative. POINT NO.2:- 18. In view of our discussion and finding on Point No-1, holding that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents so the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs sought for. In the result we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 31-01-09.) Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.

JUDGEMENT By Sri. N.H. Savalagi, President. This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant- Smt. Basamma against three Respondents- (1) Branch Manager, IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance Company Ltd., Hariyana (2) Branch Manager, IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance Company Ltd., New Delhi, and (3) Managing Director, Raitara Seva Sahakara Bank Ltd., Hirekotnekal, Tq. Manvi, Dist: Raichur. The brief facts of the complaint are as under: The complainant is the legally wedded wife of late Amaregouda S/o. Chandrashekhargouda, who was having SANKATA HARANA VIMA YOJANE POLICY during his life-time with the Respondents. The said policy was issued with the fertilizer bags of the Respondent No- 1 & 2. Respondent No-1 is the Corporate office, Respondent No-2 is the Registered office & Head office of IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance Company Ltd., and Respondent No-3 is the a Raithara Seva Sahakara Bank Ltd.,. The complainants husband was member of the Respondent No-3, wherein the fertilizers were sold and said policy was issued along with the fertilizers bag. On 31-03-06 the complainants husband Amaregegouda as member of Respondent No-3 has purchased (5) Tonnes of 10/26/26/100 bags of fertilizers and (5) tones of Urea. The complainants husband being the member of Respondent No-3 Bank was having Account NO. 2046 since from 23-03-1998. As per the terms of Sankata Harana Vima Scheme Policy, if any member purchases fertilizers/urea worth more than 25 bags is eligible to get the said Vima Yojana and after the purchase if the purchaser dies his/her successors of the family holder are eligible to avail the benefit of Rs. One Lakh from Respondents and the said policy was issued to Respondent No- 1 & 2 through Respondent No-3. The complainants husband Amaregouda died on 14-06-06, as such the complainant is entitled to claim the said Vima Yojana Policy. After the death of her husband, the complainant approached and requested the Respondent No-3 to release Rs. One Lakh towards the policy along with copy of FIR, PME, Death Certificate etc., After receiving the application from the complainant the Respondent No-3 orally told that they have forwarded her claim form to the Respondent No-1 & 2 and concerned authorities. But on 16-07-07 complainant received a letter by RPAD from the Respondents stating repudiation of her claim due to difference of signatures and it is not proved that deceased has actually purchased the fertilizers, as the signature on cash memo bill do not tally with loan record etc., Due to over-sight and lack of knowledge complainants husband might have signed in casual or different manner. But the person is one and the same who purchased the fertilizer bags and who is having account and was member of Respondent No-3. For the said reasons the Respondents cannot escape from their payment of Rs. One Lakh under Vima Yojana Policy. The claim & other better particulars of the deceased Amaregouda are all available with the photo with the Respondent No-3. To verify and confirm the true facts is the bounded duty of Respondent No- 1 & 2, who has issued the policy to the Respondent No-3 to allot the policy on purchase of stipulated number of bags of fertilizers. The genuineness of purchase, Account Number, Membership Number, are all available with Respondent No-3. So the Respondents cannot escape from their bounded duty and repudiate the claim of the complainant. This act of Respondents clearly shows deficiency of their service. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for direction to the Respondent No- 1 to 3 to pay Rs. One Lakh towards claim of Sankata Harana Vima Yojana Scheme with compensation and exemplary cost. 2. In- Pursuance of service of notice Respondent No 1 & 2 appeared through Sri. M.Nagaraj Advocate and has filed his written version. Respondent No-3 who was set ex-parte initially, subsequently appeared through Sri. M.Veerupaxigouda Advocate, and this Ex-parte order was set-aside and filed a separate written version. In the written version the Respondent No- 1 & 2 have contended that the averments that late Amaregouda having a Sankata Harana Policy issued with fertilizer bags and he had purchased (5) tones of 10/26/26/100 bags of fertilizers and 100 bags of (5) tones of urea being member of Respondent No-3 Bank etc., are not with in the knowledge of these Respondents. The averments that the complainant is the wife of Amaregouda who died on 14-06-06 and hence he is entitled to claim benefit of Rs. One Lakh under the Sankata Harana Vima Yojana Policy are not true and correct. These Respondents after the receipt of claim form verified thoroughly about the genuineness of the claim and the documents submitted by the complainant with Respondent No-3. It is found that in the insured bills there is a variation of shade of blue ink and pen pressure in writing the name of the insured and the nominee and the rest of the contents of the bill are probably indicate that the name of Amaregouda might have been inserted after his death in-order to claim the benefit. The name of nominee is no where mentioned in such policy. It is further observed that (5) previous bills and (5) later bills to that insured bills are not in-order. It is also observed that vendor (Respondent No-3) has not maintained the Stock Book of fertilizer. It is pertinent to note that the insured held only 5.31 acres of land therefore purchase of huge bags of fertilizers is un-imaginably high in the light of his land holding. Therefore Respondent No- 1 & 2 intimated the complainant through letter dt. 16-07-08 that it is not proved that the deceased has actually purchased fertilizers and the signatures on cash memo bill do not tally with loan records and it is not fulfilling the terms & conditions of Sankata Harana Vima Yojna Scheme. Hence file is closed as No Claims. In-view of creation of records over writings it is very difficult to prove the genuineness of the documents, because always insurance will be covered on utmost good faith. Hence for all these reasons the Respondents No- 1 & 2 have sought for dismissal of the complaint. 3. The Respondent No-3 has filed his written version contending that the contents of Para-3 of complaint regarding purchase of fertilizers i.e, (5) tones of 10/26/26 (100 bags) and (5) tones of urea by deceased Amaregouda is true and correct. It is true that deceased Amaregouda was having benefit of Sankata Harana Vima Yojana Policy. As per the said policy, the person who purchased the fertilizers and if dies and disabled, the legal heir of purchaser are entitled for receiving compensation upto maximum of Rs. One Lakh. Per bag of 50 Kg the insured amount is Rs. 4,000/-, but if a person purchases more than 25 bags, the maximum amount is to be paid Rs. One Lakh. It is true that deceased Amaregouda has purchased 200 bags of fertilizers through (Respondent No-3) Raitara Seva Sahakar Sangha. After the death of Amaregouda, his legal heir Basamma had brought to the knowledge of this Respondent by filing an application along with documents such as FIR with complaint, PME Report fertilizer purchase bills. After the receipt of the same, this Respondent forwarded to the Respondent No-1 & 2 with the claim forms. Complainant-Basamma who is legally wedded wife of deceased Amaregouda. The deceased Amaregouda was having account with this Respondent Bank who purchases fertilizers through Bank. He purchased 200 bags of fertilizers. The deceased Amaregouda was having Kisan Sahakara Credit Loan with the Bank. In the fertilizer bill and in the Kisan Sahakara Credit loan form the signature are different. But as per this Respondents knowledge both signatures belong to the deceased Amaregouda only and they are one and the same. But every purchaser is not having loan account or form with our Bank. The deceased had purchased 200 bags of fertilizers and his legal heirs are entitled to get benefit as per Sankata Harana Vima Yojana Policy. Hence for all these reasons Respondent No-3 has submitted that if complainant is entitled to receive compensation then liability may be fixed on Respondent No-1 & 2 and the complaint be dismissed against him. 4. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed her sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief reiterating the contents of her complaint. In-rebuttal on behalf of Respondent No- 1 & 2 the sworn-affidavit of one Sanjaya Seth, Head of the Claims has been filed by way of examination-in-chief as RW-1 reiterating the contents of written version and Respondent No-3 has filed his sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief as RW-2 reiterating the contents of his written version. On behalf of the complainant (16) documents have been got marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-16. On behalf of Respondent No-1 & 2 (9) documents have been got marked as Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-9. Respondent No-3 has not produced any document to be marked. 5. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1.Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service in not settling her claim of Sankata Harana Vima Yojana Policy Scheme, as alleged. 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for. 6. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. In the Negative. 2. As per final order for the following REASONS POINT NO.1:- 7. It is the case of the complainant that her husband late Amaregouda S/o. Chandrashekhargouda being the member of Respondent No-3 was issued with Sankata Harana Vima Policy by Respondent No-1 & 2 through Respondent No-3 for having purchased (5) tones (100 bags) of 10/26/26/ of fertilizers of (5) tones (100 bags) of urea from Respondent No-3. As per the terms of Sankata Harana Vima Scheme, if any member purchases fertilizers/urea worth more than 25 bags is eligible to get said Vima Yojana and if the purchaser dies, his/her successors of the family-holder are eligible to avail the benefit of Rs. One Lakh from the Respondents. It is also her case that her husband died on 14-06-06 and she being the wife of late Amaregouda is entitled to get the policy amount but the Respondents have repudiated her claim. Hence the complaint. She has reiterated the same in her affidavit-evidence. 8. To substantiate the same the complainant has produced in all (16) documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-16. Out of which Ex.P-8 is the Xerox copy of certificate dt. 25-10-07 issued by Respondent No-3 Raitha Seva Sahakar Bank, Niyamitha Hirekotnekal, certifying that Sri. Amaregouda S/o. Chandrashekhargouda R/o. Karab Dinni being member had purchased (5) tones of urea and (5) tones of fertilizers 10/26/26 of IFFCO TOKYO Company Ltd., on 31-03-06 under bill Nos. 2217 & 2218. Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 are the two bills bearing No. 2217 & 2218 dt. 31-03-06. Ex.P-11 is the Kissan Credit Loan Agreement Cum Promissory Note executed by Amaregouda in favour of Respondent No-3 Bank on 25-10-05 for loan of Rs. 5,000/-. Ex.P-5 is the claim form. Ex.P-3 is the Death Certificate of Amaregouda issued by Rajiv Gandhi Super Specialty Hospital Raichur. Ex.P-4 is the PME Report conducted on the dead body of Amaregouda. Ex.P-2 is the FIR and Ex.P-1 is the Repudiation Letter dt. 16-07-07 issued by Respondent No- 1 & 2 addressed to the complainant. Ex.P-12 is the copy of PUC Certificate in-respect of Amaregouda, Ex.P-13 is the SSLC Certificate in-respect of Amaregouda. Ex.P-14 is the Copy of Application Form for Primary School Teachers in-respect of Amaregouda, Ex.P-15 is the Membership Entry Book of Raith Seva Sahakar Sangha Ltd., in-respect of Amaregouda. Ex.P-16 is the Employment Registration of Certificate in-respect of Amaregouda. 9. The Respondents 1 & 2 have denied the purchase of (5) tones of urea and (5) tones of fertilizers by late Amaregouda and the cash bills No. 2217 & 2218 are not genuine as the signature of late Amaregouda on these bills do not tally with the signatures on his loan records. On receipt of claim form the Respondents verified thoroughly about the genuineness of the claim and it is found that in the insured bills there is a variation of shade of blue ink and pen pressure in-writing the name of the insured and the nominee and the rest of the contents of the bills are probably indicate that the name of Amaregouda might have been inserted after his death in-order to claim the benefit. The name of nominee is no where mentioned in such bills. It is also contended that (5) previous bills and (5) later bills to the disputed bills are not in-order. Further the late Amaregouda held only 5.31 guntas of land therefore purchase of huge bags of fertilizers is un-imaginably high in the light of his land holding. So they have intimated the complainant through letter dt. 16-07-07 that it is not proved that the deceased has actually purchased fertilizers as the signatures on cash memo bill do not tally with loan records and it is not fulfilling the terms & conditions of Sankata Harana Vima Yojana Scheme. The Respondent No-3 has filed written version supporting the claim of the complaint against Respondent No- 1 & 2. 10. The Respondent No- 1 & 2 have filed (9) documents at Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-9. Out of which Ex.R-1 is the copy of Insurance Police; Ex.R-2 is the Form of Declaration executed by late Amaregouda with Respondent No-3; Ex.R-3 is the Report of Investigation conducted by Respondent No- 1 & 2; Ex.R-5 (1 to 24) are the cash bills bearing No. 2201 to 2226 out of which Ex.R-5 (16 & 17) are the bills bearing No. 2217 & 2218 dt. 31-03-06 showing the purchase of urea of fertilizers by late Amaregouda from Respondent No-3 Sangha. Ex.R-6 is the copy of General Ledger and Ex.R-7 is the copy of Cash Book of Respondent No-3 maintained during the course of its business; Ex.R-8 is the copy of Repudiation Letter dt. 16-07-07 issued by Respondent No-1 & 2 to the complainant; Ex.R-9 & Ex.R-9(1) are the Xerox copy of cash bill bearing No. 2217 & 2218 dt. 31-03-06. It is pertinent to note here that during the course of arguments the LC for the Respondent No- 1 & 2 filed the original bills of Ex.R-9 & Ex.R-9(1) bearing No. 2217 & 2218 dt. 31-03-06 and submitted for comparising the signature of late Amaregouda on these two disputed bills with admitted signature of late Amaregouda on Form of Declaration at Ex.R-2. So for the sake of convenience, the two original bills of Ex.R-9 and Ex.R-9(1) are now marked as Ex.R-9(A) and Ex.R-9(1A). 11. The copy of Insurance Policy at Ex.R-1 issued by Respondent no- 1 & 2 (IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance Limited) shows that they have issued this policy under the scheme Sankata Harana Kissan Gramina Vima Yojana. It interalia states that this policy is evidence of contract and the proposal form along with any written statement, sale declarations from month to month for the purpose of this Policy Forms Part of Contract. The eligibility of the insured person his/her nominee/legal heir as the case may be to avail of the benefits of the cover under the policy is dependent on the truth of the information given in the serially numbered printed cash receipts or debit notes. Para-6 under sub-heading Evidence of cover, states as under:- Evidence of cover: The serially numbered printed cash Receipt or the Debit Note (when Fertilizer is purchased against Credit) issued only by Farmers Service Centers of IFFCO or Co-operative Societies shall be the sole evidence of insurance. No other document or certificate shall be issued by ITGI. The serially numbered printed Cash Receipt or Debit Memo is not negotiable and the person whose name appears in this document shall be deemed to be the insured person. However the serially numbered printed cash receipt or debit note to be valid must contain the following information: i. Name of the buyer; ii. Buyers Fatherhusband name; iii. Full Postal Address of buyer; iv. Date of issue of the bill; v. Quantity with brand of fertilizer; vi. Name of nominee; and vii. Signature/Thumb impression of buyer. 12. From a plain reading of Para-6 of this policy which is in the shape of terms & conditions, it manifest that every purchaser of the products of Respondent No- 1 & 2 Company has to put his signature on the Cash Receipts or Debit Note issued by Farmers Service Center of IFFCO or Co-operative Societies and this Cash Receipts or Debit Note shall be the sole evidence of insurance of the person who purchase the fertilizers of Respondent No- 1 & 2 Company. The Farmer Service Center of IFFCO or the Co-operative Societies shall mention the Name of Buyer his Fathers name or husband name; Full Postal Address; Date of issue of the bill the quantity with brand of fertilizers and name of the nominee. The purchaser to put his signature or thumb impression on the cash receipt or debit note. 13. In this case the complainant has contended that her husband late Amaregouda had purchased (5) tones of urea and (5) tones of fertilizers of Respondent No- 1 & 2 product from Respondent No-3 who issued receipt and on which late Amareguda has put his signature and the complainant has produced the Xerox copy of the same at Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 bearing No. 2217 & 2218 dt. 31-03-06. The Respondents 1 & 2 as stated supra in the first instance had filed copies of the said bills marked at Ex.R-9 & Ex.R-9(1) and during the arguments, of their LC has produced the original of Ex.R-9 & Ex. R-9(1) which have been marked as Ex.R-9(A) & Ex.R-9(1A). So to say it is the specific case of the complainant that her husband late Amaregouda had put his signature on receipt at Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 = Ex.R-9 & Ex.R-9(1), the original of which are at Ex.R-9(A) & Ex.R-9(1A). So it can be said that the purchaser late Amaregouda has put his signature on cash memo by complying with the terms of the policy stated at clause vii of Para- 6 of policy at Ex.R-1. 14. The Respondents 1 & 2 have contended that the signature of late Amaregouda put on the cash memo bearing No. 2217 & 2218 dt. 31-03-06 vide Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 = Ex.R-9 & Ex.R-9(1) the original of which at Ex.R-9 (A) & Ex.R-9(1A), do not tally with his admitted signature of late Amaregouda on the declaration form at Ex.R-2. As discussed above Ex.P-11 produced by complainant is Agreement letter executed by the late Amaregouda for loan under Kisan Credit and obtained from Respondent No-3 Bank. In this agreement letter, we find signatures of late Amaregouda on Page- 1 & 2 of this document at Ex.P-11. These signatures on Ex.P-11 and the signature on Ex.R-2 Form of Declaration are the one and same. So the signature of late Amaregouda on Ex.P-11 the agreement letter and his signature on the declaration form at Ex.R-2 are the admitted signatures of late Amaregouda. Now let us verify the signature of late Amaregouda on the purchase Receipt bearing bills No. 2217 & 2218 produced by the complainant at Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 = Ex.R-9 & Ex.R-9(1) and the original of which produced at Ex. R-9(A) & Ex.R-9(1A). From a comparison of the signatures of late Amaregouda on these two cash bills bearing No. 2217 & 2218 at Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 the original of which produced at Ex. R-9(A) & Ex.R-9(1A) with the admitted signature of late Amaregouda on Ex.P-11 the agreement letter and Ex.R-2 Declaration Form, it amply shows difference and non-resemblance of disputed signatures with the admitted signatures and they do not tally with respect to the mode & style and the alphabets used by the signatory. Hence it can be said without hesitation that the signatures on the two cash bills bearing No. 2217 & 2218 at Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 = Ex.R-9(1) & Ex.R-9 (1A) the original of which at Ex.R-9(1) & Ex.R-9(1A) do not tally with the admitted signatures of late Amaregouda on the Loan Agreement at Ex.P-11 and Declaration Form at Ex.R-2. 15. Drawing our attention on the signatures of late Amaregouda on the copy of PUC Certificate, Copy of SSLC Certificate, Copy of Application Form for Primary School Teacher Post, Copy of Membership Entry Book of Raitha Sevan Sahakar Sangha Ltd., and Employment Registration Certificate vide Ex.P-12 to Ex.P-16, the LC for the complainant argued that generally the signatures of a person differs from one to another in the mode and style and also in language. He further submitted that late Amaregouda in his SSLC Certificate, PUC Certificate, Application Form for the Primary School Teacher Post & Employment Registration Certificate has signed in Kannada Language as Amageouda whereas in Membership Entry Book of Raitha Seva Sahakar Sangha Ltd., he has signed in English Language as Amaregouda so it shows that late Amaregouda has no specimen signatures and he used to sign in different ways and in different language. So the signatures on the Cash bills at Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 the original of which at Ex.R-9(A) & Ex.R-9(1A) are of late Amaregouda only. Hence merely because they differ it cannot be said that they are not the signatures of late Amaregouda. 16. Admittedly the signatures of late Amaregouda on (Copy) of SSLC Certificate at Ex.P-13, PUC Certificate at Ex.P-12, Application Form for Primary School Teacher Post at Ex.P-14 & Employment Registration Certificate at Ex.P-16 are in Kannada Language whereas Membership Entry Book of Raith Seva Sahakar Sangha Ltd., at Ex.P-15 his signatures is in English in the shape of writings of his name as Amaregouda. As discussed above the admitted signatures of late Amaregouda on the Loan Agreement at Ex.P-11 & Declaration Form at Ex.R-2 are in English Language in the shape of signature as A.C. Patil, but the disputed signatures on the cash bills at Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 the original of which at Ex.R-9(A) & Ex.R-9(1A) though are in English Langage but they are in the shape of writing of his name as Amaregouda. Even these disputed signatures on the two cash bills do not tally with English signature on Membership Entry Book at Ex.P-15. So it follows that as a student, late Amaregouda might have put his signature in Kannada Language as seen in his SSLC, PUC & Employment Registration Certificates during the period between 1990 to 1997 but his signatures on Loan Agreement at Ex.P-11 & Declaration Form at Ex.R-2 (in the year 2005) are made in English Language in the shape of signature as A.C. Patil whereas the disputed signatures on the two cash bills dt. 31-03-06 at Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 the original of which at Ex.R-9(A) & Ex.R-9(1A) which are made in English Language are subsequent to the admitted signatures at Ex.P-11 & Ex.R-2 in the year 2005. As discussed above the disputed signatures on the two cash bills at Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 = Ex.R-9(A) & Ex.R-9(1A) differs altogether from the admitted signatures at Ex.P-11 & Ex.R-2. Hence it follows that the cash bills at Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7, the original of which at Ex.R-9(A) & Ex.R-9(1A) are not belonging to late Amaregouda. Further the complainant has not averred in her complaint or by way of re-joinder or has not produced any piece of evidence to show that late Amaregouda also used to put his signature like the signatures on the cash bill at Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 = Ex.R-9(1) & Ex.R-9(1A). In the absence of the same we are not in agreement with the arguments advanced by the LC for the complainant and hence we find substance in the contention of the Respondent No- 1 & 2 that the cash bill at Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 are not genuine receipts as they do not tally the signatures of late Amaregouda with his admitted signature at Ex.P-11 = Ex.R-2. 17. Nextly it is argued by the LC for the Respondent No- 1 & 2 that late Amaregouda was having a total extent of 5 acres 31 guntas of agriculture land as reported by Investigation Agency of Respondent No- 1 & 2 vide Ex.R-3. so it creates a doubt as to whether the late Amreguda had purchased a huge quantity like 5 tonnes of urea and 5 tonnes of complex Fertilizers vide the two cash bills. The Respondents in Para-5 of their written version among other things have stated that when the insured (Amaregouda) held only 5.31 acres of land so the purchase of huge bags of fertilizers is unimaginably high in the light of his land holdings. 18. The Respondents have produced Investigation Report at Ex.R-3. A close perusal of this Ex.R-3 goes to show that one Shambhu Alagundigi the Foreignsick Science Expert & Investigation Consultant has investigated regarding the stock register and the Receipt books of Ex.R-3 Raitha Seva Sahakar Sangha regarding purchase of 5 tones of complex fertilizers and 5 tonnes of Urea of Respondent products by late Amaregouda from vendor Respondent No-3 and he has also investigated the lands held by insured. His report interalia shows that the signature of the insured (Amaregouda) on the insured bills do not tally with his signatures on Membership Register and Loan Ledger. It also shows that as per the information furnished by vendor (Respondent N-3) the insured (late Amaregouda) held 5.31 acres of land so 200 bags of fertilizers is unimaginably high in his land holdings. 19. Admittedly the Respondent No- 1 & 2 in Para-5 of their written version have strongly contended that the signature of late Amaregouda on the cash bills do not tally with his admitted signatures and that late Amaregouda was holding 5.31 acres of land and thereby the alleged purchase of 5 tonnes of complex fertilizers and 5 tonnes of urea was unimaginably high. As discussed above the complainant has failed to prove that the signature on the cash bills are that of her late husband Amaregouda for purchase of 5 tonnes of (200 bags) of urea and (200 bags) of complex fertilizers. Further the complainant in her complaint has not whispered a single word about a total extent on the land held by late Amaregouda. Even the complaint do not whisper about land, survey number, and extent of land held by late Amaregouda. Added to this the complainant has not produced any Record of Rights of land to show the extent of land held by late Amaregouda. Under these circumstances the contention of Respondents based on their Investigation done by them Investigation Agency vide Ex.R-3 that late Amaregouda was holding 5 acres 31 guntas of land as stated by Respondent No-3 has to be accepted. Hence, when the signatures on the two cash bills showing the purchase of huge quantity of fertilizers and urea said to have been purchased by late Amaregouda is disputed by the Respondent No- 1 & 2 and when the Respondents have contended that late Amaregouda was having only a meager extent of land holdings, then it was incumbent on the complainant to rebut the contention of the Respondents by producing substantive piece of evidence. Of course, the complainant as discussed above, has produced Ex.P-12 to Ex.P-16 showing the signatures of late Amaregouda but she has not produced Record of Rights or any piece of paper regarding the extent of land held by her husband. In the absence of the same it is a circumstance to hold that purchase of 5 tonnes of urea and complex fertilizers under two cash bills is unimaginably high for 5 acres 31 guntas of land held by late Amaregouda. 20. Admittedly as per the terms & conditions of the policy the signature of the purchaser of the fertilizers & urea of Respondent No- 1 & 2 Company is a must and the receipts of such purchase shall be treated as Insured Receipt for the purposes of claiming insurance. In this case since the receipts are not genuine Receipts as the signature of late Amaregouda on his Receipts do not tally with his admitted signatures. So the cash receipts bearing No. 2217 & 2218 at Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 cannot be termed as insured Receipts so as to claim the insurance as laid down in the policy. If this is so it follows that Respondent No- 1 & 2 have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant by informing them vide letter at Ex.P-1 = Ex.R-8. Hence we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents in not settling claim of the complainant and therefore Point No- 1 is answered in the negative. POINT NO.2:- 18. In view of our discussion and finding on Point No-1, holding that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents so the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs sought for. In the result we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 31-01-09.) Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.