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

And

         Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member

Thursday the 17^th day of March, 2011

C.C.No 148/10

Between:

M.Krishnaiah, S/o Late M.savaranna,

R/o H.No.1/229, Mamidalapadu Village, Kurnool Mandal and District.                                  

…Complainant

                                 -Vs-

1. M/s United India Insurance Company Limited Represented by its Divisional Manager,

    40/304, Mourya Inn Complex, Bhagya Nagar,  Kurnool-518 005.   

                         …Opposite Party

        This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri S.V.Krishna Reddy, Advocate, for complainant, and Sri D.Yella Reddy, 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. 148/10

1.     This complaint is filed under section 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying:-

1. To award costs of the complaint;

1. To award Rs.10,000/- for mental agony;

1. To award interest from the date of repudiation till the date of realization.

1. To grant such other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2.     The case of the complainant in brief is as under:-  The complainant and his family members obtained cattle  insurance policy bearing No.051100/47/09/01/00000615 from the opposite party.  The said policy is valid from 28-08-2009 to 27-08-2010.  The two cattle of the complainant are insured for a sum of Rs.10,000/- each.  The opposite party issued tag numbers bearing Nos.5262 and 5263 to the two cattle of the complainant.  Due to the recent floods the cattle of the complainant drowned and lost their lives.  The said fact was informed to the opposite party. The opposite party appointed investigating officer to find out the truth.  The investigating officer enquired in to the matter and gave report to the opposite party.  The opposite party did not settle claim of the complainant inspite of the report by the investigating officer.  Finally the complainant got issued legal notice demanding to settle the claim.  The opposite party having received the said notice did not give any reply.  There is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  Hence the complaint.

3.     Opposite party filed written version, stating that the complaint is not maintainable.  It is admitted that the opposite party issued the policy bearing No.051100/47/09/01/00000615.  The said policy was in force from 28-08-2009 to 27-08-2010.  Tags bearing Nos.5262 and 5263 were issued to the two cattle of the complainant covered under the policy.   The two cattle of the complainant were not died or missed or drowned in the floods occurred on 02-10-2010.  The complainant with the political influence obtained certificates from Veterinary Assistant Surgeon and Sarpanch of Mamidalapadu.  The complainant has not informed about the death of the insured cattle in the floods.  The opposite party not received any intimation from the complainant about the death of the cattle in the floods, except the legal notice got issued by the complainant on 12-30-2010.  Unless the complainant produces the tag allotted to the cattle, the opposite party cannot settle the claim.  The complainant has not produced the tags of insured cattle.  The cattle of the complainant are not pregnant or they are milk producing cattles.  As per conditions of the policy the liability of the opposite party is restricted to the 50%.  There is no negligence of the opposite party in settling the claim.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.     On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A7 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed.  On behalf of the opposite party Ex.B1 and B2 are marked and sworn affidavit of the opposite party is filed.

5.     Both sides filed written arguments.

6.     The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party?

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

      (c)      To what relief?

7. POINT No.1 & 2:- Admittedly the complainant and his family members obtained the policy Ex.A1 from the opposite party and the said policy was in force from 28-08-2009 to 27-08-2010.  The police covers two cattle of the complainant.  Tags bearing Nos.5262 and 5263 were issued to the two cattle of the complainant.  It is the case of the complainant that in the recent floods his cattle drowned and lost their lives.  The date on which the cattles of the complainant were drowned in the floods is not mentioned in the complainant.  The complainant filed Ex.A5 certificate issued by Tahsildar Kurnool where in it is stated that there was flood on 02-10-2009 due to heavy rains.  It is for the complainant to establish that his insured cattle died due to the floods on 02-10-2009.  The complainant filed Ex.A3 letter said to have been addressed to the opposite party.  He also filed Ex.A4 letter said to have been addressed to the Veterinary Doctor.  In the said two letters Ex.A3 and A4 it is simply mentioned that the two insured cattles of the complainant were flown in rain water on 02-10-2009.  It is not at all mentioned in Ex.A3 and A4 that the cattle of the complainant died due to the floods occurred on 02-10-2009.  It is also the case of the complainant that he informed about the death of his cattle to the opposite party and that the opposite party appointed Investigation Officer.  According to the opposite party the complainant did not inform about the death of his cattle and that no Investigation Officer was appointed.  No material is placed on record to show that the intimation about the death of cattle was given to the opposite party immediately after 02-10-2009.  The name of the Investigation Officer is not at all mentioned in the complaint.  It is not shown by the complainant that he informed about the death of his cattle immediately to the opposite party.  According to the opposite party the cattle of the complainant were not died or drowned in the floods occurred on 02-10-2009.  The complainant did not file at least the affidavit evidence of the Sarpanch of the Village to establish that his two cattle died due to drowning in floods occurred on 02-10-2009.

8.     It is specific case of the opposite party that the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy and that he is not entitled to the insured amount.  As per terms and conditions of the policy the Tag should be surrendered at the time of claim.  In the event of loss of ear tags it is responsible of the insured to give immediate notice to the company.  Admittedly in the present case the complainant did not submit the ear Tags to the opposite party.  There is a special conditions in the policy No Tag no claim.  The opposite party could not produce the Tags of the cattle to the opposite party to settle the claim.  The complainant also filed in Ex.A4.  In Ex.A4 also there is no mention that the cattle of the complainant died in the floods.  The complainant is not certain whether the cattle died in the floods or they are missing.  There is no evidence to show that the complainant submitted his claim to the opposite party before he got issued Ex.A6 legal notice dated 12-03-2010.  The learned counsel appearing for the complainant relied on a following decision reported in 2006 CPJ-1-435, 199-CPJ-3-507.  The facts of the present case are entirely different from the facts of the cases cited above.  In the present case on hand there is no satisfactory evidence on record to show that the insured cattle of the complainant died due to the floods on 02-10-2009.  There is also no material to come to the conclusion that the complainant immediately gave intimation about the death of his cattle to the opposite party.  It is not shown by the complainant that the Investigation Officer was appointed by the opposite party.   No negligent on the part of the opposite party is found.  No doubt the complainant got issued a legal notice Ex.A6 dated 12-03-2010.  In Ex.A6 also there is no mention that the complainant made a claim and the said claim is pending before the opposite party.  No deficiency of service is found on the part of the opposite party.  The complainant is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for.

9.     In result, the complaint is dismissed with out cost.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 17^th day of March, 2011.

Sd/-                                   Sd/-                                  Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                   PRESIDENT                LADY MEMBER  

                                   APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainant: Nil              For the opposite party: Nill

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1        Photo copy of policy bearing No.051100/47/09/01/00000615.

Ex.A2        Photo copy of requisition letter to clear the claim

dated 11-11-2009.

Ex.A3        Photo copy of letter dated NIL given to opposite party dated 11-11-2009.

Ex.A4        Photo copy of letter given by the Veterinary Assistance Surgeon to the opposite party.

Ex.A5        Photo copy of Certificate issued by the Thasildar Kurnool Mandal, dated 17-05-2010.

Ex.A6        Photo copy of legal notice dated 12-03-2010.

Ex.A7        Photo copy of postal receipt and acknowledgement.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite party:-

Ex.B1        Broacher of the padi pasuvula Bheema Pathakam issued

by the Andhra Pradesh, Pasu Ganabhivruddi Samstha, Hyderabad.

Ex.B2        Photo copy of the Cattle Insurance Policy No.051100/47/09/01/00000615 along with terms and conditions.

        Sd/-                                     Sd/-                               Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                    PRESIDENT                LADY MEMBER  

// 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               :