Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/438/2011

Guturi Venkateswara Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Y. Chinnayya Dora

29 Nov 2014

ORDER

                                              Date of Registration of the Complaint:15-11.2011

                                                                                                Date of Order:29-11-2014

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II AT

                             VISAKHAPATNAM

 

P  r  e  s  e  n  t:

1.  Sri H. Ananda Rao, M.A., L.L.B.,

     President           

2. Smt K. Saroja, M.A. B.L.,

     Lady Member 

                                3. Sri C.V. Rao,  M.A., B.L.,

                                     Male Member

 

                          Saturday, the29^th day of November, 2014.

                                 CONSUMER CASE No.438/2011

Between:-

Guturi Venkateswara Rao, S/o Pandu Dora,

Hindu, aged 41 years, House No.5/3,

Satyavaram, Payakaraopeta, Visakhapatnam

District.s

….. Complainant

And:-

1.National Insurance Company Limited.,

   Rep. by its Branch Manager, Direct Agent Branch,

   D.No.47-14-7/1, Seethammapeta Road,

   Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam-530016.

2.Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Veterinary Dispensary,

   Srirampuram, Visakhapatnam.

                                                                                        …  Opposite Parties    

                     

          This case coming on 28.11.2014 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri T. Partha Saradhi & Sri Y. Chinnayya Dora, Advocates for the Complainant and Sri B.V. Ramanjaneya Rao, Advocate for the 1^st Opposite Party and Sri R. Appa Rao (RAR), Advocate for the 2^nd Opposite Party and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:

 

                                                ORDER

          (As per Sri. H. Ananda Rao, Honourable President, on behalf of the Bench)

 

1.       This consumer complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Parties directing them to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) together with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of claim till realization, and to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) towards compensation and costs.

 

 

 2.      The case of the Complainant in brief is that the 1^st Opposite Party is doing Insurance Business in the name and style of National Insurance Company Limited and the 2^nd Opposite Party is responsible to remit the insurance amount collected from farmers with the 1^st Opposite Party as per the agreement in between them, the Complainant availed the insurance scheme provided by the 1^st Opposite Party for his cow for a period of one year from 30.03.2010 to 20.03.2011 for Rs.20,000/- by paying a sum of Rs.335/- towards premium vide Policy No.550704/47/09/94900000151 and the Opposite Parties have issued a policy conformation letter dated 26.03.2010 with Certificate No.11403, wherein the buffaloes ear tag No.NIC 69663 was clearly mentioned.    It is also his case that the cow died on 01.08.2010 and it was duly intimated to the 1^st Opposite Party deputed was investigated and the 2^nd Opposite Party conducted Post-mortem examination and there upon he forwarded the claim form cum veterinary certificate through the 2^nd Opposite Party along with Insurance Certificate.  Accordingly, it is processed to settle the claim, but the 1^st Opposite Party has protracted in settling the claim and on that he got issued a legal notices and there-after filed this Complaint.   Hence, this Complaint.

 

3.       The case of the 1^st Opposite Party denying the material averments of the Complaint contended that the Complainant as insured only one she buffalo on 26.03.2010 with them vide Policy No.550704/47/09/9400000151 and it is tag No.69643, and the same was paid through the 2^nd Opposite Party.     It is also their case on intimated by the Complainant about the death of cow on 01.08.2010 they have appointed a Surveyor without verifying the policy document as it is Sunday and found the cow with tag No.69663  was not at all insured with them, and the same was intimation.   Thus as there is no policy insurance coverage to the cow and no insurance premium has been paid they are not liable to pay any claim amount.

 

4.       The case of the 2^nd Opposite Party is that the Complainant paid premium Rs.335/- towards his cow and obtained policy referred supra, and the tag number of the cow is NIC 69663 and further admitted that the cow died on 01.08.2010 and on intimation to the 1^st Opposite Party deputed one investigator and they have conducted Post Mortem Examination of the cow and on application by the Complainant for their claim of insurance in respect of deceased cow, they have forwarded the same to the 1^st Opposite Party and finally submitted they cannot be made liable for the fault, on the part of the 1^st Opposite Party in disallowing the claim of the Complainant.

 

5.       It is also their case that the insurance premium amount paid by the Complainant in respect of the cow and other farmers they were duly remitted with the 1^st Opposite Party on 30.03.2010 and the schedule clearly shows that the complainant has contributed premium for a sum of Rs.335/- in respect of his cow vide Certificate No.11403 and that the Insurance Policies sent by the 1^st Opposite Party had not specified the premium paid by the Complainant in respect of his cow, as such, they made several representations to the 1^st Opposite Party and also personally visited their office but there is no response from the 1^st Opposite Party.   Therefore, they are not liable to pay any amount to the Complainant.

 

6.       To prove the case on behalf of the Complainant, his sworn evidence affidavit is filed and got marked Exs.A1 to A5.   On the other hand, on behalf of the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties their respect evidence affidavits are filed and got marked Exs.B1 to B5.

 

7.       The Complainant and Opposite Party filed written arguments.

 

8.       Heard argument from both sides.

 

9.       Now the point that arises for determination is:-

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite    Party and the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs of advance amount with interest, compensation damages and costs.

 

10.     As seen from record, it is an admitted fact that the Complainant availed the insurance scheme provided by the 1^st Opposite Party to milk yielding animals by insuring his she buffalo for a period of one year from 30.03.2010 to 20.03.2011 for Rs.20,000/- by paying a sum of Rs.335/- towards premium vide Policy No.550704/47/09/94900000151 and the Opposite Parties have issued a policy confirmation letter dated 26.03.2010 with certificate No.11403, wherein the buffaloes ear tag No.NIC 69643 and after the death of the she buffalo, the 1^st Opposite Party has settled the claim.   It is also not in dispute that the Complainant cow died on 01.08.2010 and on intimation the 1^st Opposite Party deputed their investigator who recoded the statement of the Complainant, and the 2^nd Opposite Party has conducted Post Mortem on the deceased cow. 

 

11.     The case of the Complainant is that he has availed the insurance scheme provided by the 1^st Opposite Party to milk yielding cow along with the she buffalo for a period of one year from 30.03.2010 to 20.03.2011 for Rs.20,000/- each by paying a sum of Rs.335/- towards premium vide policy number referred supra.  The Opposite Parties have issued a policy confirmation letter dated referred supra, wherein ear tag of the cow NIC No.69663 was allotted and after the death of cow, it was intimated to the 1^st Opposite Party etc., along with the certificates concern requesting the 1^st Opposite Party to settle the insurance amount since the cow used to yield 10 liters of milk per day as he last income, but the 1^st Opposite Party failed to settle his insurance claim.   The 1^st Opposite Party denied the same.

 

12.     In order to prove the case of the Complainant, he filed his sworn evidence affidavit and relied upon Exs.A1 to A5.    Ex.A1 is the photo copy of Policy confirmation document issued by the 1^st Opposite Party to the Complainant on 26.03.2010.    Ex.A2 is the Claim Form-Cum-Veterinary Certificate of the Complainant on 21.08.2010.  Ex.A3 is the Office copy of the Legal Notice sent by the Complainant’s counsel to the 1^st Opposite Party on 11.01.2011.   Ex.A4 is the Reply letter issued by the 1^st Opposite Party to the Complainant on 25.01.2011.  Ex.A5 is the Photo (one).

 

13.     The evidence of the Complainant is supported by the 2^nd Opposite Party who also stated that he remit the insurance amount collected from farmers with the 1^st Opposite Party.  As per the agreement in between the 1^st Opposite Party and Animal Husbandry Department the Complainant availed the insurance scheme provided by the 1^st Opposite Party and vide Policy No. 550704/47/09/94900000151 and the Opposite Parties have issued a policy confirmation letter dated 26.03.2010 with certificate No.11403, wherein the ear tag of the cow NIC 69663 are clearly mentioned therein, and about the death of the cow, deputation of investigator.  He also corroborated the evidence of PW-1 that he forwarded the claim along with original insurance certificate to the 1^st Opposite Party along with P.M. Certificate and other relevant papers, so also cow ear tag to enable them to process the claim and settled the insurance amount to the Complainant.

 

14.     The 2^nd Opposite Party evidence also goes to show that the premium amount paid by the Complainant in respect of the cow together with the farmers insurance premium to a tune of Rs.14,318/- were duly remitted with the 1^st Opposite Party on 30.03.2010 along with the schedule attached to which clearly shows that the Complainant has contributed premium to a tune of Rs.335/- in respect of his cow vide Certificate No.11403 as evidenced of Exs.B4 and B5.   His evidence also goes to show the insurance policy sent by the 1^st Opposite Party, is not specified the premium paid by the Complainant in respect of the cow as such, he made several representation, but there is no response from the Opposite Party.

 

15.     On a careful reading of the evidence of the Complainant and the 2^nd Opposite Party coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 and Exs.B4 and B5 together with the admission made by the 1^st Opposite Party in respect of sending surveyor for investigation of the death of the cow;  we are of the considered view that the cow of the Complainant died and the exhibit referred supra, clearly goes to show the Complainant insured the cow vide policy referred supra, which is also substantiated by the 2^nd Opposite Party’s evidence.

 

16.     It is the case of the 1^st Opposite Party on verifying the policy documents; it was found that cow with tag No.69643 was not at all insured with them.   Therefore, it is relevant for him to refer Exs.B1 and B2.   Ex.B1 issued by the National Insurance clearly shows the Complainant insured the she buffalo by paying a sum Rs.335/- towards premium and the Opposite Parties have issued a policy confirmation letter dated 26.03.2010 with certificate No.11403, wherein the buffalo ear tag number is noted as NIC 69643.   Ex.B1 also discloses the same was issued to different persons for i.e., about in 83 number wherein except the car tag of  the cow NIC 69663 all other numbers are mentioned in seriatim commencing from 69641 to 69690.      It appears on seen from Ex.B1 for the reasons best known to the 1^st Opposite Party said missing entry was occurred.  On perusal of Ex.B1 we are of the view that it is for the 1^st Opposite Party to explain the missing entry but they did not do so.    Therefore, adverse inference can be drawn against the 1^st Opposite Party.    In view of the admission made by the 1^st Opposite Party that they deputed a surveyor for investigation on coming to know about the death of the cow and the corroborated evidence of the 2^nd Opposite Party to the evidence of the Complainant, we are also of the considered view that it is for the 1^st Opposite Party to substantiate why the missing entry in respect of NIC 69663 ear tag of cow was occurred, for which there is no proper explanation from the 1^st Opposite Party.   Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, and in view of the reasons stated supra, we are in considered view that the Complainant insured the cow with certificate No.11403 and on that an ear tag of the cow was allotted as NIC 69663,   but for the reasons best known to the 1^st Opposite Party and to have a wrongful loss to the Complainant, they have not settled the claim of the Complainant, which clinches there is a clear deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st Opposite Party, therefore, the Complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.20,000/- together with interest thereon till realization.

 

 17.    Now the question that comes up for consideration, at this stage of our discussion what is the rate of interest for which the Complainant is entitled.   The rate of interest claimed by the Complainant is 18% p.a.  This rate of interest claimed by the Complainant appears to be excessive, of course, it is a fact that the transaction covered by Ex.A1 is in commercial in nature, but that does not and cannot mean to say that the Complainant is a licenced to claim interest @ 18% p.a. on Ex.A1.    But at the same time, it is imperative on our part to award a reasonable interest.   Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we sincerely feel having considered the case on hand awarding of interest @ 12% p.a. would better serve the ends of justice.    Consequently, we proposed to fix the rate in question @ 12% p.a. on Ex.A1 in question.   Accordingly interest is ordered.

 

18.     Whether the Complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.20,000/- is to be considered.   It appears as seen from the evidence of PW-1 that the Complainant was compelled to approach the Opposite Parties and therefore experienced a lot of physical strain besides mental agony and financial loss. It is un-dispute fact that the Opposite Parties did not refund the amount subscribed by the Complainant.   Naturally that made have put the Complainant to suffer some mental agony besides physical stress and strain.   In this view of the matter, we sincerely feel that it is a fit case to award compensation.   But that does not and cannot mean to say that the Complainant claim for compensation is acceptable.    Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion, award and compensation of 5,000/- would serve the ends of justice.   We therefore, proposed to award compensation of Rs.5,000 /-,  in the circumstances of the case on hand. Accordingly this point is answered.

 

19.     Before parting our discussion, it is incumbent and imperative on our part to consider the costs of litigation.    The Complainant ought not have to approach this Forum had his claim for sum of Rs.20,000/- or reliefs sought for have been honored by the Opposite Party within a reasonable time and in view of the matter, the Complainant’s claim for costs deserves to be allowed.   In our considered and unanimous opinion awarding a sum of Rs. 2,500/- as costs would appropriate and reasonable.   Accordingly costs are awarded.

 

20.     In the result, Complaint is allowed, in part directing the Opposite Parties to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of payment i.e., from 21.08.2010 till the date of decree and there-after @ 9% p.a. till the date of realization, and to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) and costs of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only).   Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only).   Time for compliance, one month.

     Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this the 29^th day of November, 2014.

 

Sd/-                                          Sd/-                                             Sd-

Male Member                     Lady Member                                 President

 

 

 

 

 

                             APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.A1	26.03.2010	Policy Confirmation Document issued by the 1st OP to the Complainant	Photo copy
Ex.A2	21.08.2010	Claim Form-Cum-Veterinary Certificate in favour of the Complainant.	Original
Ex.A3	11.01.2011	Legal Notice sent by the Complainant’s counsel to the 1st OP.	Office copy
Ex.A4	25.01.2011	Reply letter issued by the 1st OP to the Complainant.	Office copy
Ex.A5		Photo (one).	Original

For the Opposite Parties:-               

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.B1	30.03.2010	Insurance Policy Copy	Photo copy
Ex.B2	11.01.2011	Legal Notice sent by the Complainant’s counsel to the 1st OP.	Office copy
Ex.B3	25.01.2011	Reply letter issued by the 1st OP to the Complainant	Office copy
Ex.B4	30.03.2010	Receipt issued by the 1st OP	Photo copy
Ex.B5	30.03.2010	Cattle Insurance Policy together with schedule	Photo copy

 

                                     

Sd/-                                          Sd/-                                             Sd-

Male Member                           Lady Member                                President