BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ATHYDERABAD
F.A.No.1060 OF 2010 AGAINST C.C.NO.92 OF 2005 DISTRICT FORUMRAJAHMUNDRY
Between
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
Rep. by its Divisional Manager,
Rajahmundry
Shri Satyanarayana Poultries rep. by
Its partner Sri Ch.Ramanna Vemulapalli
Dwarapudi-341, E.G.District
F.A.No.1061 OF 2010 AGAINST C.C.NO.93 OF 2005
Between
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
Rep. by its Divisional Manager,
Rajahmundry
Shri Satyanarayana Poultries rep. by
Its partner Sri Ch.Ramanna Vemulapalli
Dwarapudi-341, E.G.District
F.A.No.1062 OF 2010 AGAINST C.C.NO.94 OF 2005
Between
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
Rep. by its Divisional Manager,
Rajahmundry
Shri Satyanarayana Poultries rep. by
Its partner Sri Ch.Ramanna Vemulapalli
Dwarapudi-341, E.G.District
F.A.No.1063 OF 2010 AGAINST C.C.NO.95 OF 2005
Between
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
Rep. by its Divisional Manager,
Rajahmundry
Shri Satyanarayana Poultries rep. by
Its partner Sri Ch.Ramanna Vemulapalli
Dwarapudi-341, E.G.District
F.A.No.1064 OF 2010 AGAINST C.C.NO.360 OF 2005
Between
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
Rep. by its Divisional Manager,
Rajahmundry
Shri Satyanarayana Poultries rep. by
Its partner Sri Ch.Ramanna Vemulapalli
Dwarapudi-341, E.G.District
Counsel for the appellant
Counsel for the Respondent
QUORUM:
AND
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
TWO THOUSAND TWELVE
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
1. The appeals arise from the orders passed in the complaints filed by the same complainant against the very same opposite party and the nature of the dispute in all the appeals is in regard to insurance claim with regard to death of birds in poultry farm. As such the appeals are taken up for disposal by a common order. F.A.no.1060 of 2010 is taken as the lead case.
2.
3. `1,21,425/- firm whereby the respondent got issued notice through its advocate on 22.09.2000 for which there was no response from the appellant insurance company.
4. `25,000/- to`40,000/- is incorrect.
5.
6. He did not comply with the request of the opposite party. Vijayawada misleading the insurance company.
7.
8. `1,15,425/- with interest and costs.
9.
10.
11.
12. `1,21,425/- for the loss of 1619 birds.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17. 18. According to the appellant insurance company the age of the birds cannot be identified by making physical verification as to whether it had crossed the age of insurance. `1,21,425/- and 50% of the claim is Rs.60,712/- and the same amount is payable by the appellant insurance company to the respondent farm.
19.
F.A.No.1061 of 2010
20. `1,58,025/- `2,000/-.
21. `67,784/- `2,000/-.
F.A.No.1063 of 2010
22. `2,38,890/- `2,000/-.
F.A.No.1064 of 2010
23. `28,530/- `2,000/-.
KMK*
