BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD
FA.NO.811 OF 2005 AGAINST C.D.C.No.75 OF 2001 District Forum,Vizian
agaram
Between:
1.The Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Parvathipuram,
Vizianagaram.
2. The Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Srikakulam. ... Appellants/
Opp.parties
And
Smt.Vydha Suryam , W/o.late Ranga Rao,
Resident of Reddipalli,
Padmanabham Mandal,
Visakhapatnam District. ... Respondent/
Complainant
Counsel for the appellants : Smt.S.A.V.Ratnam
Counsel for the respondent : M/s.M.Lakshmana Sarma
CORAM: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
SMT.M.SHREESHA , HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI G.BHOOPATHI REDDY, HON’BLE MEMBER
MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH,
TWO THOUSAND EIGHT
Oral Order : (Per Sri G.Bhoopathi Reddy, Hon’ble Member)
****
This is an appeal filed by the appellants/opp.parties under Section 15 of C.P.Act 1986 to set aside the order passed by District Forum , Vizianagaram in C.D.C.No.75/2001 dt.4.10.2004.
The respondent herein is the complainant before the District Forum. She filed a complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 to direct the opp.parties to pay Rs.76,200/- towards compensation and Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony and physical hardship.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant has Mango grove of an extent of 15.26 cents covered by survey no.5/6 in Reddipalli village . The said mango grove was insured with the opp.parties against any damage to the crop/yield or any possible attack by pests etc. during the year 2000. . The opp.parties assured the complainant to pay Rs.5000/- per acre in case of any damage to the crop and accordingly issued a receipt voucher. The said mango grove was infected due to humid weather and due to pest attack. The complainant could not prevent the said damage even though she availed the service of the people of Horticulture Department. The said damage was beyond her control. Inspite of letters enclosing certificate of damage issued by Horticulture Department the opp.parties did not entertain the claim . Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties the complainant approached the District Forum to direct the opp.parties to pay Rs.76,200/- towards compensation and Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony and physical suffering.
The 1st opp.party filed counter denying the allegations made in the complaint. The complainant obtained horticulture/ plantation policy which did not cover damage or loss due to humid weather and due to attack of pests. In the policy issued to the complainant there is clear exclusion of fog and or high humidity and other circumstances described therein . The opp.parties are not liable to pay for the alleged loss or damage for the reason, there is no coverage in the policy for the loss due to fog and or high humidity. There is no deficiency in service and also the Forum has no jurisdiction. He prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. The second opp.party filed a memo adopting the counter filed by the 1st opp.party..
The complainant filed evidence affidavit and documents Exs.A1 to A6. The opp.parties also filed evidence affidavit and document Ex. B1 . The District Forum based on the evidence adduced and pleadings, allowed the complaint directing the opp.parties to pay a sum of Rs.76,2000/- towards compensation for the damage caused to the crop with interest @ 9% p.a. thereon from June 2000 till payment. The opp.parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1000/- towards costs of the complaint.
Aggrieved by the said order the opp.parties preferred this appeal contending that the insurance policy does not cover the damage to the garden due to the terrible humid weather and consequential attack of ‘Tenimanchu Purugu’ and ‘Pothamadu tegulu’. The District Forum ought to have seen that as per the exclusion clause of the policy the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation for the diseases to the plants due to climate effect. The disease was caused to the plants in view of the terrible humid atmosphere.. The policy covers the risk, if any damage to the garden is caused due to unnatural calamities like fire storms etc. They prayed to set aside the order of the District Forum and allow the appeal.
There is no dispute that the complainant has got mango garden to an extent of 15.26 cents and the said mango garden was insured with the opp.parties under Ex.B1 Horticulture/plantation policy . . On account of the pest attack and humid weather the mango grove was infected and the yield was not proper. and Ex.B1 policy was valid during the said period. The appellants contended the said policy is not covered as per the exclusion clause. The respondent contended that the exclusion clause is not applicable in our present case is concerned. The submission made by the appellants is concerned we have gone through Ex.B1 policy. The policy consists inclusion clauses and exclusion clauses . The relevant inclusion clauses are clause nos.5 and 6. Clause no.5 includes storm, hailstorm, cyclone, typhoon, tempest etc. and Clause no.6 is in respect of flood and inundation. As per the exclusion clauses, clause no.3(1) is in respect of the loss or damage due to insects pests and diseases. Clause 3(VII) is in respect of loss or damage due to fog or high humidity. The complainant has complained to the insurance company and Horticulture officer, Bheemunipatnam has also inspected the mango garden of the complainant issued certificate Ex.A3. As per the said certificate itself disclose that the assessed damage is to an extent of 90% on account of the rains. It also reads that the flower drop due to a large extent because of humid weather conditions and pest attack. The District Forum elaborately discussed and given finding that Clauses 3(1) and 3(VII) are not applicable. The said finding of the District Forum is confirmed. The appellants contended that the damage to the mango crop is on account of the circumstances within the exclusion clause hence they are not liable to pay the claim amount . Submission made by the appellants is not sustainable. Repudiation of claim of the complainant by the Insurance Company is not sustainable. The appellants further submit that the District Forum awarding compensation of Rs.76,200/- with 9% interest and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony is excessive . The submission made by the appellants is concerned we have gone through the letters Exs.A4 and A5 addressed by the complainant. to opp.party no.1. In letter Ex.A4 the complainant has claimed damages in respect of mango crop but she has not specified the claim and compensation and interest. In Ex.A5 the complainant has mentioned that on account of the rains her mango crop was affected and claimed damages, but there was no specific mention of amount claimed . .Ex.A6 is the pass book with regard to ownership of the land wherein she has mango garden. With regard to the damage to the mango crop is concerned Ex.A3 is a certificate issued by Horticulture Officer wherein it is stated that the complainant is the owner of the survey no.205 -5,6 in an extent of 15.26 acs. and the extent of damage to the mango crop is 90% . The complainant has not lead any evidence with regard to the damage to the mango crop except relying on Exs.A2 and A3 and evidence affidavit. Compensation awarded by the District Forum at Rs.76,200/- is excessive one . In the circumstances of the case is concerned compensation awarded by the District Forum is reduced to Rs.60,000/- . Order of the District Forum with regard to direction to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and physical strain is also not sustainable.
In the result appeal is partly allowed . Order of the District Forum is modified by reducing compensation from Rs.76,200/- to Rs.60,000/- . Order of the District Forum with regard to the direction to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and physical strain is set aside. In all other aspects order of the District Forum is confirmed. Time for compliance six weeks.
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER
Dt.10.3.2008
Pm*
