This complaint coming up before us for hearing on                      12-03-12 in the presence of Sri.P.V.Ramana, advocate for complainant and of Sri G.Erukala Reddy, advocate for 1^st opposite party,                 Sri. C.Yagna Narayana, Advocate for 2^nd opposite party, upon perusing the material on record, after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following:

O R D E R

Per Sri M.V.L.Radha Krishna Murthy, Member:

This complaint is filed u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act praying to pass an award in favour of the complainant and against opposite parties for a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- comprising of Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages, Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and for Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses.

2.   The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

        Complainant is running a Rythu depot in the name and style of M/S. Annapurna Rythu Depot at Bapatla .  The said premises originally situated in D.No. 11-8-6/1, Officer’s Club Road, 19^th ward, Bapatla.  The complainant’s son Kotikala Moses was looking after the business affairs of complainant.  The complainant approached 1^st opposite party bank and availed the bank loan for which complainant is the principal barrower while her son Moses stood as guarantor.  The 1^st opposite party insured the unit of complainant with 2^nd opposite party, after making inspection by the Field Officer of 1^st opposite party and Development Officer of 2^nd opposite party. The opposite parties satisfied with the value of the stocks duly compared with Bank Stocks Value Statement and issued insurance policy in the name of 1^st opposite party and complainant.  The said policy was issued on             28-06-07 which was expired on 27-06-2008.  1^st opposite party collected a Premium of Rs.1,438/- p.a. and remitted the same to 2^nd opposite party. The sum assured under the policy is Rs.2,80,000/-  The said policy was renewed from time to time and it was expired in June 2010.  The nature of stocks are paddy and its related bi-products.  Subsequently the said unit was shifted to Siva Balaji Trade Mill, New Bustand Road, Bapatla on 10-04-2007.  The said change of address was intimated to 1^st opposite party who in term intimated the same to 2^nd opposite party on 26-06-2007.

3.     On 22-09-2007 due to heavy rains and inundation the said unit was affected by rain water.  The rain water entered into the premises to a depth of nearly 2ft.  As the rain water entered into the premises. The rice stock approximately 210 quintals worth Rs.2,00,000/- was damaged.   Complainant submitted claim form on 10-10-2007 along with all relevant documents to 1^st opposite party who in turn forwarded the claim to 2^nd opposite party.  Opposite parties 1 &2 have not settled the claim and kept quiet for years.  Inspite of several requests made by the complainant, 2^nd opposite party neither settled the claim nor repudiated the same and it is pending with 2^nd opposite party.  Due to non settlement of the insurance claim, the loan amount liability was increased day by day and caused hardship to the complainant before discharging the same.  Ultimately complainant applied for information under Right To Information Act.  The 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite party issued information letters dated 08-04-2011 and 23-02-2011 respectively.  Both letters do not contain the repudiation of claim.  Thus opposite parties 1 & 2 committed the deficiency of service.  Hence the complaint.

1^st opposite party filed its version affidavit which is in brief is as follows:

4.     The material allegations made in complaint are incorrect and the complaint is barred by limitation.  This forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as complainant can not be described as a consumer.  This opposite party has not received the intimation of change of address of complainant from D.NO. 11-8-6/1, Officer’s Club, 19^th ward, Bapatla to Siva Balaji Trade Mill, New Bustand Raod, Bapatla at any point of time.  Hence the same could not be intimated to the 2^nd opposite party.  If any loss is occurred to the complainant she has to inform to this opposite party and 2^nd opposite party within 24 hrs from the time of occurrence.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  This opposite party has sanctioned a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant on 20-06-2006 under over- draft account No. 12084.  The credit facility was sanctioned by this opposite party on the basis of guarantee given by one P. Bhushanam and Katikala Moses.  This account has been renewed from time to time.  The barrowers have not repaid the amounts as agreed upon.  When it was demanded by 1^st opposite party for repayment of the amount, the complainant approached this Forum.  There is at present a sum of Rs.2,47,968/- excluding interest was due and payable to this account as on 30-07-2011.  Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

2^nd opposite party filed its version which is in brief as follows : 

5.     Most of the averments mentioned in the complaint are false, incorrect and invented for the purpose of this complaint.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of 2^nd opposite party, as such complaint is not maintainable.  The complaint is barred by limitation.  This opposite party has not received any claim from 1^st opposite party Bank or complainant during the policy period till 27-06-2008.  The complainant applied for information under Right to Information Act on 27-01-2011 and this opposite party has replied 23-02-2011.  This opposite party is not liable for payment of any claim to the complainant.  Without any information from 1^st opposite party or complainant this opposite party is unable to settle the claim as per policy condition.    A reply letter was sent to the complainant within one month when the complainant filed application for information under Right to Information Act.  This complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties Katikala Moses who stood as guarantor for the loan applied by the complainant.  The complainant is guilty suppressio vary and suggestio false.  Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs. 

6.     Complainant and 2^nd opposite party filed their respective affidavits in support of their versions.

7.      On behalf of the complainant Exhibits A1 to A10 are marked.  On behalf of 1^st opposite party Exhibits B-1 to B-4 are marked.  On behalf of 2^nd opposite party Ex.B-5 to B-9 are marked.

8.      NOW THE POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION ARE :

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer with in a meaning of Consumer Protection Act.
2. Whether the complaint is barred by the Law of Limitation U/S 24-A of Consumer Protection Act.
3. Whether the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party Katikala Moses.

1. Whether there is any deficiency of services on the part of opposite parties 1 & 2?
2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?.

9.      POINT NO. 1:- The case of the complainant is that she was running a rise depot in the name and style of M/S. Annapurna Rythu Depot at Bapatla that she run business originally at Officers Club road, 19^th Ward, Bapatla and later shifted the business premises to Siva Balaji Trade Mill, New Bustand Road, Bapatla on 10-4-2007, that she informed the change of address to 1^st opposite party who in turn intimated the same to 2^nd opposite party, that she obtained loan from 1^st opposite party and that 1^st opposite party insured her business premises with 2^nd opposite party on  28-06-07, that during the subsistence of the insurance policy due to heavy rains water entered into her business premises and caused damage to the rise stock of about 210 quintals worth Rs.2,00,000/- that she made a claim for the same on 10-10-2007 and submitted all relevant documents to 1^st opposite party who in turn sent the same to 2^nd opposite party but her claim was not settled by 2^nd opposite party and thus there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 & 2.        

10.    The case of 1^st opposite party is that the complaint is barred by Law of Limitation, that complainant has not informed about the change of address of the complainant’s firm and that they have not informed the change of address to 2^nd opposite party and that there is no deficiency of service on the part of 1^st opposite party.

11.   The case of 2^nd opposite party is that the complaint is barred by the limitation, that 2^nd opposite party  has not received any intimation regarding change of address of the premises of complainant from 1^st opposite party or complainant during the policy period, that the complainant applied for information under Right to Information Act and that the 2^nd opposite party replied for the same, that there is no information from 1^st opposite party or complainant to 2^nd opposite party to settle the claim as per the policy conditions, that complainant has not submitted any claim to 2^nd opposite party at any point of time and that 1^st opposite party also has not informed about the damages of stocks of the complainant.  Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of 2^nd opposite party.

12.   Complainant obtained a loan from 1^st opposite party bank and the 1^st opposite party insured the stocks of the complainant with the 2^nd opposite party and that therefore complainant is a consumer with in the meaning of Consumer Protection Act.  Accordingly this point is answered.

13.    POINT NO. 2:-   It is not in dispute that complainant is running business under the name and style of M/S. Annapurna Rhythu Depot at Bapatla.  It is also not in dispute that the complainant obtained a loan from 1^st opposite party.   It is also not in dispute that the business premises of the complainant was insured with 2^nd opposite party by the 1^st opposite party with the address mentioned in the policy Ex.A-2.  According to the version of the complainant she shifted her business premises from D.NO.11-8-6/6 Officers Club Road, 19^th Ward, Bapatla to Siva Balaji Trade Mill, New Bustand Road, Bapatla, on 10-04-2007 , subsequent to the insuance of the insurance policy under Ex.A-2 and the change of address was intimated to the 1^st opposite party who in turn intimated to 2^nd opposite party on 26-06-2007.  In support of her said version that she informed the change of address to 1^st opposite party she filed Ex.A-10, Letter dated 26-06-2007.  The said letter Ex.A-10 was not acknowledged by 1^st opposite party.  There is no evidence that the said letter Ex.A-10 was submitted to 1^st opposite party and that the 1^st opposite party in turn informed the same to the 2^nd opposite party.  The contention of opposite parties 1&2 that they were not informed by the complainant about the change of the address of the business premises of the complainant.   The contention of the complainant is that her business premises was insured with 2^nd opposite party for the period from 28-06-2007 to 27-06-2008 and the said policy was renewed from time to time till June 2010.  The 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite party inspected the Business premises of the complainant and verified the stocks with the statement before insuring the insurance policy by the 2^nd opposite party.   As seen from Ex.A-2 copy of policy, the premises of the complainant was insured from 28-06-2007 to 27-06-2008 with the old address i.e. 11-8-6/1, Officers Club Road, 19^th Ward, Bapatla.

14.   According to the version of the complainant the business premises was shifted to Siva Balaji Trade Mill, New Bustand Road, Bapatla on 10.04. 07.  The date of issuance of policy Ex.A-2 is 28.06.07 which is subsequent to the shifting of the premises.  Then there will be no question of necessity to inform the change of address of the business premises.  Further as per the affidavit of complainant the premises in question was shifted to D.No.11-7-1, Laxmikantamma Hospital Road, Bapatla.  The date of shifting the business premises is not mentioned in the affidavit.  Thus the affidavit is contradicting the version of the complainant regarding shifting of business premises. Even assuming that the shifting of business premises is subsequent to the issuance of policy, no endorsement of change of address was obtained   on the said policy by 1^st opposite party.  The case of 1^st opposite party is that they have not received any intimation regarding the change of address of the insured premises from the complainant as alleged by the complainant.  The case of 2^nd opposite party also is that they have not received any intimation regarding change of business premises either from 1^st opposite party or complainant.  As already stated above complainant failed to prove her allegation that she informed about change of address of business premises.  At the stage of arguments, complainant filed some interrogatories and they were answered by 2^nd opposite party and the same are adopted by 1^st opposite party.  The said interrogatories and answers are not at all useful to the case of complainant.  Therefore in view of the foregoing discussion, it can be safely concluded that the business premises of complainant where the damage was alleged to have been caused was not covered by the policy of insurance under Ex.A-2. Therefore, either1st opposite party or 2^nd opposite party are not liable for the alleged loss caused to the complainant, since the premises where the alleged loss was caused, was not covered under the insurance policy in question.

15.   According to the complainant on 22-09-2007 due to heavy rain the water entered into his premises and caused damage to the rise stock of 210 quintals worth Rs.2,00,000/- and that she submitted claim form along with relevant documents to 1^st opposite party on         10-10-2007 who in turn sent the same to the 2^nd opposite party and she has not filed any document in support of her version that she made a claim on 10-10-2007.  The version of 1^st opposite party is that they have not received any claim from the complainant regarding the damage causes to the stocks of the complainant.  The version of 2^nd opposite party is that they have not received any claim either from 1^st opposite party or from the complainant regarding the damages of the stocks of the complainant as alleged by the complainant. Before filing this complaint, complainant sought for information under Right to Information Act under Ex.B-7 to which 2^nd opposite party required under Ex.B-8, wherein it was answered for 4^th question that there is no claim.  Thus complainant failed to prove that she made a claim as alleged by her and that it is pending with 2^nd opposite party.  The cause of action as alleged by complainant arose on 10-10-2007.  But the complaint was filed before this Forum on 19-05-2011.  Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion it can be safely concluded that the complaint is barred by Law of Limitation under section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act, since the claim is not proved as stated above.  

16.    POINT NO. 3:-  The case of complainant is that she is running business and that the said business was looked after by her son Katikala Moses who stood as guarantor for the loan borrowed by the complainant.  The version of 2^nd opposite party is that the complaint is bad for non joineder of necessary party Katikala Moses.  The 2^nd opposite party has not explained as to how the said Katikala Moses is a necessary party to the complaint.  In our opinion the said Katikala Moses is not a necessary party to the complaint and that therefore the complaint is not bad for non joinder of Katikala Moses who is the son of the complainant.  Accordingly this point is answered.

17.    POINT NO. 4:-          In view of the foregoing discussion on points 1&2, we find no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties             1 & 2.  Accordingly this point is answered.

18.    POINT NO. 5:-   In view of the foregoing discussion on points            1,2 &4, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

19.    In the result, The Complaint is dismissed, but in the circumstance of the case each party shall bear their own costs.

Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 16^th day of March, 2012.

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party:

Read By           :

Compared By   :

 PRESIDENT