This C.C. came up before this Forum for final hearing in the presence of Sri.K.Rajesekhar Reddy, Advocate for complainant and of Sri.G.Seetha Rama Rao, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and of Sri.D.K.Patel, Advocate for opposite party No.2; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments on both sides, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
ORDER
(Per Sri.Vijay Kumar, President)
1. This complaint is filed u/s.12 -A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is depending on milk business, with a view to eking his lively hood, he approached K.G.Mallela primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society to avail loan to purchase a block she buffalo for his milk business and availed loan for Rs.14,000/- and purchased a black she buffalo from R.Chennaiah as per market value.
2. As per the advice of P.A.C.S., K.G.Mallela, who suggested the complainant to insure the she buffalo with opposite party No.1 to avoid any unfortunate things happened, and paid an amount of Rs.622/- to the opposite party No.1 who issued a policy bearing No.550400/47/04/9400000492 under cattle insurance with a tag No.NIC-01089. The she buffalo used to give 5 letters of milk every day. After some time the she buffalo became pregnant and the complainant taken proper care for the pregnancy of the animal and gave vaccinated through veterinary doctor against H.S., B.Q. and F & M. Subsequently, the animal entered calving period in 9th month. Suddenly the cattle suffered with some disease, immediately the complainant consulted Area Veterinary Surgeon. The veterinary surgeon visited and treated the she buffalo on 22-12-2005 and 27-12-2005. But unfortunately the said animal died due to immature amphistomiasis on 27-12-2005 at 7-00 P.M. The complainant spent an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards medical expenses to the she buffalo. Immediately after the death of animal, the complainant had informed to P.A.C.S. K.G.Mallela, in turn to inform the same to the opposite party No.1 by phone, but the opposite party No.1 has not responded. After the death of the animal, the complainant sent claim form along with death certificate, P.M.E. report and certificate issued by Moddulagudem panchayat Secretary to the opposite party No.1 office on 23-1-2006 and also to P.A.C.S., K.G.Mallela and requested the opposite party No.1 to release the claim amount of sum insured. Having complied all the formalities, the complainant approached the opposite party No.1, but the officials have not responded and postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. Hence, the complaint to direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.14,000/- together with interest at 18% P.A. from the date of death of she buffalo i.e. 27-12-2005 to till the date of realization and also to pay medical expenses of Rs.3,000/- and damages of Rs.10,000/- for their most irresponsible dealing, inconvenience, harassment and expenditure incurred by the complainant.
3. On the other hand having received the notice, the opposite party No.1 filed the counter and admitted that it has issued the policy to M/s.PACS, K.G.Mallela under cattle insurance policy. It is further contended by the opposite party No.1 that as per the policy issued and as per the condition No.4 and 7 of the cattle insurance policy, the insured shall give notice in writing to the company of any illness or lameness of or accident or injury to any animal hereby insured within twelve hours of its occurrence. On the death of animal hereby insured the insured shall within twelve hours give notice thereof by telegram to the company at the office which was issued the policy and shall give the company, all the opportunity of inspection the carcass by not removing cutting or parting with it until atleast the expiration of twenty four hours after such notice shall have been received by the company. The insured shall also within fourteen days furnish to the company, such information accompanied by veterinary certificate and satisfactory proof as to the death identity and value of the animal as the company may require. In this case, the animal suffered illness on 22-12-2005 and died on 27-12-2005 and the intimation about the death of the animal was received by the opposite party on 2-1-2006. Therefore, it clearly shows that the opposite party has not been given an opportunity to inspect the carcass of the animal and the complainant violated the condition No.4 and 7 of the cattle insurance policy and as such the opposite party was unable to entertain the claim of the complainant. It is further contended that opposite party No.1 had not directly issued the policy to the complainant and the said policy issued to the PACS, K.G.Mallela, who gave loan to the complainant and others by insuring the cattles to this opposite party and as such the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party and liable to be dismissed.
4. It is further contended that this forum lacks of jurisdiction and it is civil court, which can only adjudicate the same as observed by the National Forum in 2003(3) ALT 40 (CPA) and further contended that the opposite party issued the policy situated at Vijayawada and the cause of action arose at Vijayawada, and as such this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint u/s.11 of Consumer Protection Act.
5. After filing the counter by the opposite party No.1, the complainant filed the application in I.A.708/2007 to implead P.A.C.S., K.G.Mallela as opposite party No.2. Accordingly, this Forum has passed orders on 14-12-2008 by allowing the petition and impleaded opposite party No.2 in this complaint. Thereafter, a memo is filed by the opposite party No.2 to adopt the counter of opposite party No.1, as the counter of opposite party No.2.
6. On behalf of the complainant, chief affidavit is filed and Exs.A.1 to A.7 are marked. Ex.A.1 is Valuation certificate, Ex.A.2 is death certificate of the she buffalo, Ex.A.3 is declaration certificate issued by Panchayat Secretary, G.P.Moddulagudem, Vemsoor mandal, Khammam District, Ex.A.4 is valuation certificate issued by Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Veterinary Dispensary, Vemsoor mandal, Khammam District, Ex.A.5 is the P.M.E. report, Ex.A.6 is claim form, Ex.A.7 is two photographs
7. On behalf of the opposite parties No.1 and 2, chief affidavits filed and Ex.B.1, policy is marked along with terms and conditions of cattle insurance policy.
8. Both parties filed written arguments. Heard both sides. Perused the oral and documentary evidence on record, upon which the points that arose for consideration are,
1) Whether the complainant is entitled to claim amount covered under the cattle insurance policy? And also entitled to claim damages for inconvenience and mental agony caused by him?
2) To what relief?
Point No.1:
9. It is not in dispute that the she buffalo of the complainant had been insured with the opposite party vide cattle insurance policy. Only the contention raised by the opposite party No.1 is that the complainant has not informed to them within 12 hours of the death of the animal. As per the terms and conditions of the policy No.4 and 7 the opposite party has lost the opportunity of inspection the carcass atleast the expiration of 24 hours after such notice shall have been received by the company. The complainant shall also within 14 days furnish to the company the information regarding the death of the animal. On these two conditions, the claim has been repudiated. On the other hand the counsel for the complainant vehemently argued and submitted that immediately after the death of the animal they have informed to the opposite party No.1 officials by telephone, but there is no response from the opposite party No.1 and also intimated to the opposite party No.2 and also the Govt. Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Vemsoor. On the next day the Govt. Veterinary Assistant Surgeon had came and conducted post mortem on 28-12-2005 and issued the P.M.E. certificate, Ex.A.5. It is the opposite party No.1 that has violated the condition No.7 of insurance policy, by not visiting the carcass of the animal even after the information is passed to them. Further, it is submitted that immediately after the death, the death certificate is issued by Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Vemsoor as in Ex.A.2 and also a confirmation of death certificate was issued by Panchayat Secretary as in Ex.A.3. Further, the valuation certificate is also issued regarding the cost of the animal as in Ex.A.4. Ex.A.5 is P.M.E. report of animal. All these documents clinchingly go to show that the she buffalo died due to immature amphistomiasis. Ex.A.5 is an important piece of evidence, it goes to show that the animal died due to some disease as indicated in Ex.A.5. On presenting all these documents, we do not find any necessity to the opposite party No.1 to once again inspect and examine the carcass of the animal and more over it is opposite party No.1, which was not interested to visit immediately after the information is passed by the telephone to inspect the carcass of the animal. Therefore, it cannot contend that it had lost an opportunity of inspection of carcass of the animal. Only on this ground the opposite party No.1 cannot repudiate the claim of complainant. In view of the above facts and circumstance, the complaint is fit to be allowed.
10. In the result, the complaint is allowed by directing the opposite party No.1 to pay the insured amount of Rs.14,000/- (Rupees fourteen thousand only) as covered under the cattle insurance policy under Ex.B.1 with interest at 9% P.A. from the date of death of she buffalo i.e. 27-12-2005 till the date of deposit. So far as the medical expenditure of the she buffalo is concerned, no receipt has been produced. Therefore, this claim is rejected. An amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) is awarded towards compensation for causing inconvenience and harassment to the complainant and also an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs of the litigation.
Dictated to the steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open forum on this the 28th day of January, 2009.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMEBR
DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM
KHAMMAM
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses examined for complainant:
-None-
Witnesses examined for the opposite party:
-None-
Exhibits marked for complainant:
Ex.A.1 is Valuation certificate
Ex.A.2 is death certificate of the she buffalo
Ex.A.3 is declaration certificate issued by Panchayat Secretary, G.P.Moddulagudem,
Vemsoor mandal, Khammam District
Ex.A.4 is valuation certificate issued by Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Veterinary
Dispensary, Vemsoor mandal, Khammam District
Ex.A.5 is the P.M.E. report,
Ex.A.6 is claim form,
Ex.A.7 is two photographs
Exhibits marked for opposite party:
Ex.B.1, policy along with terms and conditions of cattle insurance policy.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMEBR
DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM
KHAMMAM
