BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah , B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy , M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
Monday the 08th day of November , 2010
C.C.No 139/09
Between:
Smt. N.Sumadura, W/o. B.Nagabhushanam,
Plot No.134, Shanti Nagar, Adoni-518 302. …..Complainant
-Vs-
M/s The New India Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager,
No.19-19,20/21, Municipal Main Road, Adoni-518301, Kurnool District. ……Opposite PartieS
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.M.Sivaji Rao, Advocate, for complainant, and Sri.P.Narasimhulu, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No. 139/09
- This complaint is filed under section 11 & 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying to direct the OPs
- to settle the claim by paying the assured amount with interest
@ 24% p.a.
- to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for
causing mental agony and hardship
- to pay the costs of the complaint,
- to order any such order or orders that are deems to be fit
and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(2) The case of the complainant is as under :- The complainant on 05-05-2006 purchased seven she buffaloes in Karnataka State . On the same day the complainant insured her she buffaloes and the OP issued policy No. 61070247050100000027. The period of coverage is 06-05-2005 to 05-05-2006. Thereafter on 07-03-2006 four she-buffaloes died due to food poison. The said four she-buffaloes were insured for Rs.55,000/- .The tag Nos of the died she-buffaloes are
Sl.No. Tag No. purchase amount Insured amount
1. 92394 Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-
2. 92400 Rs.13,000/- Rs.13,000/-
3. 92399 Rs.13,000/- Rs.13,000/-
4. 92393 Rs.14,000/- Rs.14,000/-
The Veterinary doctor tested and declared that four she-buffaloes died. On 08-03-2006 Dr. M. Eswaraiah, Asst., Director Animal Husbandry sent a letter to OP.No.1 intimating the particulars. After the death of four she-buffaloes the complainant submitted the claim to the OP. The complainant also approached the Consumer Welfare Society, Adoni. On 16-03-2007 the President of the said society wrote a letter to the OP. The OP gave a reply stating that the buffaloes which died are insured with Royal Sundaram Insurance Company. Again on 01-10-2007 the complainant and the Consumer Welfare Society sent a detailed explanation to OP. Having received the said explanation the OP did not settle the claim .The complainant also got issued legal notice demanding the OP to settle the claim .After receipt of the said notice the OP gave a reply refusing to pay the amount. Hence the complaint.
3. OP filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. After receiving the death intimation of she-buffaloes the OP arranged investigation to enquire into the death claim of the animals. It was found that Basix Corporation sanctioned loan to the complainant for purchase of three animals and tagged the animals including animals insured by the OP. The animals financed by Basix Corporation are insured with M/s. Royal Sundaram Insurance Company. The complainant with an intention to gain wrongfully lodged the claim . The OP settled the claim of the death of the she-buffaloes bearing tag No. 92398 on 01-03-2006 . The OP came to know that M/s. Royal Sundaram Insurance Company settled some claims. The same property can not be insured with two companies. Royal Sundram Insurance Company Limited is also a necessary party in this case. The claim is excessive. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A6 are marked and the sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite party Ex.B1 to B3 are marked and the sworn affidavit of OP is filed.
5. Both sides filed written arguments.
6. The points that arise for consideration are
(i) whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP ?
(ii) whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
(iii) whether the complaint is bared by time?
(iv) To what relief?
7. Point No.1 & 2: It is the case of the complainant that she insured her four she-buffaloes with the OP for Rs.55,000/- and that the said four buffaloes are given tag Nos. 92394 ,92400, 92399 92393 . It is admitted by the OP that complainant insured her she buffaloes with it. According to the complainant her four buffaloes bearing tag No. 92394 ,92400, 92399 , 92393 died on 07-03-2006. The complainant filed Ex.A1 letter addressed by Asst., Director of Animal Husbandry to OP.No.1. In the said letter it is clearly mentioned that four buffaloes died on 07-03-2006. The death of the four buffaloes of the complainant is not in dispute.
8. It is the case of the OP that the complainant also insured the same buffaloes with Royal Sundaram Insurance Company Limited and that she claimed the assured amount for some of the died buffaloes from both the companies. The complainant filed Ex.B3 surveyors report dated 08-04-2006. As seen from Ex.B3 it is very clear that Royal Sundaram Insurance Company Limited appointed Sri. Govindarajaja Murthy as a surveyor regarding death of the she buffaloes insured with the Royal Sundaram Insurance Company Limited . The surveyor in his report clearly stated that he noticed ear tag belonging into New India Insurance Company Limited on the ears of died she buffaloes. He further stated that the said died buffaloes were also given tag Nos 20145 and 20148. He observed that the complainant lodged the claim with Royal Sundaram Insurance Company Limited and also with New India Assurance Company. In page No. 2 of Ex.B3 the surveyor observed that the died she buffaloes having tag No. 92394 was also insured with Royal Sundaram Insurance Company Limited under tag No. RC 20145 and she buffaloes having tag No. 92393 was also insured with Royal Sundaram Insurance Company Limited under tag No.20147. As seen from the report of the surveyor appointed by Royal Sundaram Insurance Company Limited it is very clear that the complainant insured her she buffaloes with New India Insurance Company and also with Royal Sundaram Insurance Company Limited at a time and that the complainant claimed the amount from both the company and gained wrongfully. One who seeks justice must come to the court with clean hands. The complainant insured her she buffaloes with two companies to gain wrongfully. Therefore the complainant is not entitled to any relief. It is also argued by the leaned counsel appearing for the OP that as per the terms and conditions of the policy if the same property insured with the two companies, the both the companies are liable to contribute the assured amount retable. Ex.B1 is the terms and conditions of the policy. Condition No. 7 provides that if the same property is insured with two companies the both the companies shall contribute the amount retably. The OP at an earliest point of time addressed a letter Ex.A6 informing the Consumer Welfare Society, Adoni stating that the complainant got insured her she buffaloes with two companies and that her claim can not be accepted. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP. The complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for. .
9. Point No3: Admittedly the complainant obtained insurance policy from the OP. The complainants she buffaloes died on 07-03-2006. After the death of she buffaloes the complainant addressed Ex.A5 letter to the President of the Consumer Counsel , Adoni and that the President Consumer Welfare Counsel addressed Ex.A2 letter to the OP with a request to settle the claim of the complainant . In turn the OP addressed a letter Ex.A6 of the President of the Consumer Welfare Counsel, Adoni. The said letter is dt: 24-04-2007. In the said letter OP informed that they have not entertained the claim of the complainant as she got insured her she buffaloes with two companies. The complainant not filed the complaint within two years from the date of refusal of OP to settle the claim .The complainant filed the present complaint on 13-07-2009 . The period of limitation is two years from the date on which cause of action has arisen . The complaint is filed beyond two years from 24-04-2007. It can be safely said that the complaint is bared by time. No doubt the complainant got issued legal notice on 17-06-2009 and OP gave a reply Ex.A4 dated 24-06-2009. The legal notice got issued by the complainant does not extend the period of limitation . The cause of action for the complaint has arisen on 24-04-2007 when the OP made it clear that the claim of the complainant can not be entertained.
10. Point No.4:- In the result the complaint is dismissed. In the circumstances no costs.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 08th day of November, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE 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 Photo copy of letter from the Asst. Director Animal Husbandry to OP dt:08-03-2006.
Ex.A2. Photo copy of letter from the consumer welfare society, Adoni,
Ex.A3. Office copy of legal notice dt:17-06-2009 along with postal
receipt and acknowledgement.
Ex.A4. Reply notice dt:24-06-2009.
Ex.A5. Photo copy of letter addressed by the complainant to the President , Consumer Welfare Counsel, Adoni dt:01-10-2007 along with courier.
Ex.A6. Letter addressed by the OP to the President , Consumer Welfare Counsel, Adoni dt;24-04-2007.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Attested copy of terms and conditions of the cattle insurance policy.
Ex.B2. Letter dt:24-04-2007 addressed to Consumer Welfare Society, Adoni from OP.
Ex.B3. Report of K.Govindaraja Murthy , Surveyor and Loss Assessor of Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Dt 08-04-2006.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
