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
Wednesday the 9th day of May, 2007
C.C. No.132/2006
Golla Pedda Raju,
S/o Golla Venkata Subbanna,
Agriculturist, Hanumanthugundam (V),
A/w Perusomula, Koilakuntla Taluk,
Kurnool District. .. COMPLAINANT
Verses
1) India Formers, Fertilizers Co-Operative Limited,
Rep.by State Marketing Manger, State Marketing Officer,
D.No. 10-5-22, Masab Tank, Hyderabad-28.
2) IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited,
Rep.by its Divisional Manger, II Floor,
Uma Chambers, Panjagutta, Hyderabad.
3) IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited,
Rep.by its Chief Manger Claims, 4th and 5th Floors,
IFFCO Towers, Plot No.3, Sector-29,
Gurgaon-122 001. (Haryana), Haryana State.
4) Primary Agriculture Co-Operatiove Society,
Rep.by its Secretary, Hanumanthugundam,
Koilakuntla, Taluk, Kurnool District. .. OPPOSITE PARTIES
This complaint coming on this day for hearing in the presence of Sri.M.L.Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for Complainant and Sri.M.Sivaji Rao, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite Party No.1, Sri.P.Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party No.3, Sri.M.Shantha Ram, advocate, Kurnool for opposite party No.4 and opposite party No.2 called absent set exparte upon the perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
As per Sri. K.V.H. Prasad, President
C.C.No.132/2006
1. This case of the complainant is filed U/S 12 of C.P. Act., seeking direction on the opposite parties to pay him Rs.1,00,000/- towards the insred amount of Golla Rama Devi, with interest at 12% P.A. from the date of demise of said Golla Rama Devi, Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony suffered at the deficient conduct of the opposite partiesis not entertaining the claim, and Rs.5,000/- as costs of this case, alleging the purchase by deceased Rama Devi-W/o the complainant-forty bags of DAP (IFFCO) fertilizer at a rate of Rs.485/- from the opposite party No.4 vide bill No.88 dated 27-01-2004 and the said purchased fertilizer is covered with Sankat Haran Kisan Gramin Yojana Insurance policy issued by opposite parties 2 and 3 for Rs.4,000/- per bag subject to a maximum of Rs.1,00,000/- in case of accidental death of said purchaser and the demise of said purchaser-Golla Rama Devi-in road accident occurred at Hanumanthgudem (V) on 05-08-2004 and the complainant preferring the claim for said insurance coverage amount and the deficient conduct of opposite parties is not settling the said claim.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complaint, while the opposite party No.2 abstained from the case proceedings and thereby remained exparte, the opposite parties 1, 3 and 4 contested the case filing their written version denying any of their liability to the complainants claim.
3. The written version of the opposite party No.1 submits that it has taken an insurance policy titled Sankat Harn (Kisan Gramin Bhima) Yojana from the opposite parties 2 and 3 paying necessary premium for the benefit of farmers/members of the co-operative societies, who purchase its manufactured branded fertilizers of IFFCO and under the terms and conditions of said insurance the insured person will be entitled to the sum assured in case of accidental death/permanent and total disability occurring on account of said accident, if the claim is made with required certificates, information and evidence in support of the insurance claim for its adjudication by the opposite party No.2 and the role of opposite party No.1 is near facilitator between the opposite party No.2 and the insured person and there being any proper cause of action to the complainant against the opposite party No.1 and so any of its liability to the complainants claim.
4. The written version of the opposite party No.3 submits firstly that the opposite party No.2 is not a necessary party to this case proceeding as the opposite party No.2 not issued said insurance policy and as mere its branch office having any liability to the complainants claim, secondly it pleas of its ignorance as to the purchase of the branded fertilizers of opposite party No.1 by the deceased from the opposite party No.4 and the demise of said purchaser due to accident, thirdly the credit/cash receipt issued by farmers service counters or IFFCO, or Cooperative Societies shall only be valid and the said cash receipts are not negotiable and the person whose name appears in said receipt shall be deemed to be the insured person and the said cash receipt must contain the required particulars as to the name of it buyer with his parentage, full postal address, date of issue of said bill, quantity of branded fertilizer purchased, name of the nominee and the signature/thumb impression of said purchaser and said signature should tally with original signature of said purchaser and so non complaisance of any of the above would attract the repudiation of claim and fourthly that the claim of the complaint was investigated by its investigator-M.A.Sajied of Secenderabad and the records of the opposite party No.4 as to the sales of fertilizers were found running several inconsistencies with the bill books and sale registers of opposite party No.4 and in the absence of any proper explanation for those inconsistencies those sale transactions were felt as colluded with malafide intentions and the said purchase of forty bags of fertilizers by deceased Rama Devi is doubtful as the said purchaser was neither a farmer nor having lands for cultivation and on the other hand she was an illiterate house wife with any capacity or necessity to said purchase and the bills are said purchasers was a fabricated one by the father-in-law of said deceased with the connivance of Secretary of the opposite party No.4 society and so the documentary record of complainant side is malafide one. Fifthly that the complainant failed to furnish any authenticated signature of the deceased, in spite of several notices, to settle the claim and hence any deficiency on its part. It lastly submits that the case of the complainant is barred by limitation by 0408-2006 it self as the letter dated 12-04-2006 of complaint to the opposite parties 2 and 3 saves any limitations and so for want of any cause of action against it and for want of limitation it has any liability to the complainants claim and so seeks the dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/-.
5. The written version of the opposite party No.4 primarily denies the allegations of the opposite party No.3 leveled against it and the complaint and deceased and their family members and their purchase of fertilizer with it and on the other hand supports the case and cause of action of the complaint alleging all the deficiencies on the part of the other opposite parties alone and there by their liability only to the complainants claim and any of its liability to the complainants claim as it has done all required on its part in forwarding the claim and its subsequent pursuance.
6. In substantiation of the contentions while the complaints side has taken reliance on the documentary record in Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 decides to the sworn affidavit of complaint and its 3rd party-B.Bali Reddy, the opposite party side has taken reliance on the documentary record in Ex.B1 to Ex.B12 and the sworn affidavit of the opposite parties 1, 3 and 4.
7. The Ex.A1 is the attested copy of cash bill for purchase of forty bags of DAP (IFFCO) at a rate of Rs.485/- per bag, for Rs.19,400/- on 27-01-2004. It stands in the name of G.Rama Devi bearing her signature on it as its purchaser. It was issued by the opposite party No.4 in token of receipt of amount for the goods sold there under. The Ex.B12 is its corresponding carbon copy of bill book No.3 of the opposite party No.4 covering sales transactions from 15-11-2003 to 25-03-2004. The opposite party No.3 in its written version submits that the cash/credit receipts issued by the farmers service counters or IFFCO or Cooperative Society which are entrusted with the sale of branded fertilizers of opposite party No.1, are only valid and the said cash/credit receipt are not negotiable and the person whose name appears there in shall be deemed to be the insured person and the validity of the said cash/credit receipt only when it contains the name of the purchaser, his parentage, postal address, date of issual of said bill and the quantity of branded fertilizers purchased, name of the nominee and the signature of the said purchasers. The Ex.A1 is satisfying all the above stated requirements enunciated by the opposite party no.3 in its written version. Further the Ex.B12 the carbon copy of Ex.A1 in Ex.B12 bill book is establishing the bonafidies of the Ex.A1. The Ex.B9-the terms and conditions of said Sankt Haran (Kisan Gramin Bhima) Yojana Policy-which covers the insurance to the purchaser of IFFCO brand fertilizers, no way prescribe the furnishing of any authenticated signature of the purchaser of the fertilizer for entertaining and settling the claim arising out of the contingence of the demise of the said purchaser of said fertilizer. Further from the wording in the terms and conditions of the said policy as “ITGI shall not be responsible for any benefit under this policy if name of the buyer of fertilizer and brand of the fertilizer purchased is not mentioned in cash memo or debit note” what is essential and materiel to consider the claim arising out of the demise of said purchaser is the said bill containing the name of the buyer and the brand of fertilizer there under only and not any other thing non the less any comparison with any further authenticated signature of the purchaser of said bill. Hence as long as the Ex.A1-cahs memo-contains the name of its purchaser, and the date of transition and the particulars of the buyer there appears any justification in the conduct of the opposite parties in insisting for any other authenticated signature of the purchaser of goods mention in Ex.A1, vide Ex.A3-its letter dated 14-04-2005, to entertain the claim as it would be asking for that which is not warranted.
8. In advertence to the report of investigator appearing in Ex.B10 the opposite party No.3 suspects the bonafidies of the complainant in preferring the claim and the opposite party No.4 issuing the sale bill in Ex.A1 for sale of forty bags of DAP fertilizers to G.Rama Devi. Except doubting the bonafidies of complainant and that of opposite party No.4 as to Ex.A1 and the claim made on the bases of Ex.A1 and of the business transactions of opposite party No.4, the opposite party No.3 did not substantiate it affording any chance to test the velocity of said report either by examining the said investigator or seeing the filling of any sworn affidavit of said investigator. Hence the Ex.B10 is remaining as a mere marked document without any endeavor of its substantiation by cogent means and so the Ex.B10 carries any weight worthy of consideration.
9. The Ex.B1 is the letter dated 15-08-2004 addressed by the opposite party No.4 tot eh opposite party No.2 requesting for furnishing the claim form intimating the accidental death of G.Rama Devi on 05-08-2004 at 3.00 P.M. The Ex.A2 is the Office Copy of the claim form submitted on 05-09-2004 by the complainant on the insurable interest of his wife-G.Rama Devi. The Ex.B2 is a letter dated 18-09-2004 of the opposite party No.4 addressed to opposite party no.2 envisages the enclosure of documents there with for early settlement of the claim of the complainant. The Ex.B3 is reminder letter of opposite party no.4 in continuation to Ex.B2 making further request for early settlement of the claim. The Ex.B4 is a letter dated 15-01-2005 of the opposite party No.4 to opposite party No.2 as to submission of required Police Final Report as to the accidental death of G.Rama Devi and requesting for early settlement of the complainants claim. The Ex.B5 and Ex.B6 are reminder letters dated 28-04-2005 and 14-07-2005 of the opposite party No.4 addressed to opposite parties 2 and 3 respectively requesting for early settlement of the claim. The Ex.B7 is letter dated 12-01-2006 of the opposite party No.4 to opposite party No.2informaing the non availability of any other authenticated signature of the deceased Rama Devi and so requesting for the settlement of the claim within 15 days from thereon or else to seek redresal in the Forum. The Ex.A4 is the office copy of personal notice given by the complaint to the opposite party No.4 as to the non availability of the any authenticated signature of his wife Rama Devi and requesting for settlement of claim with 15 days or else to take legal recourse in Consumer Forum. The above correspondence envisages the prompt persuantion of the claim both form the complainant and opposite party No.4 since the cause of action and so theirs being continues cause of action there appears any merit and force worthy of consideration in the issue raised as to the aspect of limitation to the complainants case.
10. The Ex.A3 letter dated 14-04-2005 of the opposite party No.3 addressed to the complainant as regard to the claim of the complainant says that the signature on the cash memo (Ex.A1) is not tallying with other documents and so if authenticated proof of signature of deceased is submitted for verification it may consider reopening of the claim. Except alleging as such the opposite party side did not venture to place the so called other documents with which the signature of the deceased in cash memo is not tallying for appreciation of said stand.
11. The above stated exhibits envisages the diligent and persuasive approaches of opposite party No.4 and complainant for prompt settlement of claim. When no authenticated signature of the purchaser is warranted under the terms and conditions of Sankat Haran Kisan Gramin Bhima Yojana Policy issued by opposite parties 2 and 3 covering the insurance to the purchaser of branded products of opposite party No.1-by issue of Ex.A3 by the opposite parties Chief Manager Claim requiring the submission of authenticated documentary proof of signature of the deceased for its verification remains not only unwarranted but also of their insistences for the thing that is not required. The silent conduct of the opposite parties 2 and 3 to the claim of the complaint subsequent to Ex.A3 inspite of the persuasive correspondence of opposite party No.4 and complainant envisages the supine indifference of the opposite parties 2 and 3 towards settlement of the claim of the complaint arising out of the Ex.A1 covered under Ex.B9 policy and the Ex.B8 the prospectors covering the insurance issued by opposite parties 2 and 3 tot eh purchasers of the branded products of opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.4.
12. The opposite party No.3 draws the attention of this forum as to several irregularities observed by its investigator in Ex.B10 report in reference to the bill books and stock register and there by doubts the bonafidies of the sales made by opposite party No.4 and the Ex.A1 cash receipt issued as to the sale of fertilizers to the complainant and thereby questions the entitleness of the complaints for the reliefs sought. It also draws the attention tot eh entries at page No.12 of stock register in Ex.B11 which envisages sale of 341 bags of fertilizers upto 27-01-2004. The perusal of bill No.80 to 90 dated 27-01-2004 appearing in Ex.B12-Bill book No.13 covering the period 15-11-2003 to 25-03-2004 justifies the above figure as to the quantum of fertilizers sold noted in stock registers. Therefore there appears any primafacie material in the said submission.
13. Further form the scope of this case proceedings the complainant entitleness is to be worked out on the cogent materiel available with him and not being certainly on the short comings in any of the opposite party No.4 who has sold said goods to the deceased G.Rama Devi especial when the 3rd party sworn affidavit of Bali Reddy supports the cultivation of lands leased by him by complaints side. Hence under any circumstances there appears any justification on the part of the opposite parties 2 and 3 in not settling the claim on lame pretexts and so their such a lapsive conduct is amounting to deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 2 and 3 and thereby exposing their liability to the complainants justifiable claim arising out of the Ex.A1 in Vis-à-vis to Ex.B8 and Ex.B9 and its terms and conditions.
14. As any deficiency conduct or deficiency of service is made out against the opposite parties 1 and 4 making them liable to the complainants claim the case of the complaint against the opposite parties 1 and 4 is dismissed.
15. As the opposite parties 2 and 3 by their deficient and lapsive conduct of not settling the claim of the complainant ensured mental agony to the complaint they are liable for compensation to the complainant under said head.
16. As the opposite parties 2 and 3 by their lapsive and deficient conduct of not settling the claim of the complainant on lame pretext driven the complainant to the Forum for redressal of his justifiable grievances they are liable to the costs of the complainant also.
17. Consequently the complaint is allowed against the opposite parties 2 and 3 ordering them jointly and severally to pay to the complainant Rs.1,00,000/- the maximum limit of insurance amount for the purchase of forty bags of fertilizers under Ex.A1, Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the suffered mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as costs of this case within a month of the receipt of this order. In default the opposite parties 2 and 3 shall jointly and severally liable to pay the supra stated awarded amount with 9% interest for the date of said default till realization.
Dictated to the Computer Operatpr, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us Open bench on this the 9th day of May 2007.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the Complainant:Nil For the Opposite Parties: Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Attested copy of the bill No.88 dated 27-01-2004 as to purchase of
40 bags of DAP by complainants wife from opposite party No.4.
Ex.A2 Account of claim form dated 05-09-2004.
Ex.A3 Letter dated 14-04-2005 of opposite party No.3 to the complainant as to the claim.
Ex.A4 Office copy of letter dated 12-04-2006 of complainant to opposite party No.4.
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Office copy of letter dated 15-08-2004 of opposite party No.4 to
opposite party No.2 requesting for claim form.
Ex.B2 Office copy of letter dated 08-09-2004 of opposite party No.4 to
opposite party No.2 forwarding the claim from requesting for
settlement.
Ex.B3 Office copy of letter dated 08-09-2004 of opposite party No.4 to
opposite party No.2 forwarding the claim from requesting for
settlement.
Ex.B4 Office copy of letter dated 15-01-2005 of opposite party No.4 to
opposite party No.2 submitting Policy Final Report and requesting
to settle the claim.
Ex.B5 Remainder Letter dated 28-04-2005 of opposite party No.4 to opposite party No.2.
Ex.B6 Office copy of letter 14-07-2005 of opposite party No.4 to opposite party No.3 requesting settlement of claim.
Ex.B7 Office copy of letter dated 12-04-2006 of opposite party No.4 to opposite party No.3 requesting settlement within 15 days along with acknowledgement.
Ex.B8 The Printed Booklet issued by opposite party No.1.
Ex.B9 True copy of Sankat Haran Policy dated 02-01-2004 along with policy terms and conditions.
Ex.B10 Investigation Report.
Ex.B11 The relevant portion in Rg.No.12 as to Stock Position in fertilizer stock register of opposite party No.4 on 27-01-2004.
Ex.B12 Carbon copy of bill No.88 in Bill-Book No.3.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:
1. Sri.M.L.Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri.M.Sivaji Rao, Advocate, Kurnool.
3. Sri.P.Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate, Kurnool.
4. Sri.M.Shantha Ram, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties
