BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : WARANGAL

Present:       Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu,

                                                President.

                                                Sri N.J. Mohan Rao,

                                                Member

                                               And

Smt. V.J. Praveena,

                                                Member.

 Tuesday, the 13^th day of May, 2008.

CONSUMER DISPUTE NO. 107/2000

Between:

M/s Santhoshimatha Poultry Farm,

Rep. By its Proprietor Ch.Prabhakar Reddy,

S/o Malla Reddy, Age: 38 years,

Occ: Business, R/o Anantha Sagar,

Warangal District.

                      … Complainant

AND

The New India Assurance Company Limited,

Rep. By its Branch Manager,

P.B.No.37, R.N.T. Road,

Warangal – 506 002.

… Opposite Party

Counsel for the Complainant      : Sri. M. Ajay Kumar,  Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Party  : Sri K.Krishna Prasad,  Advocate.

This complaint coming for final hearing before this Forum, the Forum pronounced the following Order.

                                                   ORDER

Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu, President.

          This is a complaint filed by the complainant M/s Santoshimatha Poultry Farm, rep. By its Proprietor Ch. Prabhakar Reddy against the Opposite party under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to pay 40% of the insured value i.e., 1,59,000/- and Rs.50,000/- towards damages.

The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainant are as follows:

The complainant is the Proprietor of M/s Santhoshimata Poltry Farm situated at Anantha Sagar, warangal and he is running the poultry business since last 7 years at Warangal.  The complainant purchased 5300 birds and approached the Opposite party and paid a premium of Rs.22,956/- and obtained policy for 72 weeks valid from 11-3-99 and Opposite party  issued valid cover notice original No.042245 valid from 11-03-99 at 2.45 PM to 72 weeks.   Every week the complainant approaching the Doctor for the welfare of the birds and Doctors visited from first week onwards.  During the 1^st week 6 birds died, 2^nd week 2 birds  died, 3^rd week 3 birds died and so on and 2141 birds died and the Doctors certified the same and Insurance Surveyor also visited the same and endorsed in the Bobcock book that in 12^th week 2479 birds died and 666 alive and informed the Opposite party, and the Opposite party visited and verified the same and confirmed that 4634 birds died in between 1^st week to 12^th week. The complainant lodged claim application with Opposite party for compensation amount, the Opposite party stated to wait for compensation.  The complainant visited the Opposite party office several times, but the Opposite party not paid the amount. As such he filed the present complaint before this Forum.

          The Opposite party filed the Written Version contending in brief as follows:

  And further they stated that the Insurance Company is not liable o pay the amount and dismiss the complaint.

          The complainant in support of his claim, filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination and also marked Exs.A-1 to A-11.  On behalf of Opposite party one Y.Srinivas filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination and also marked Exs.B-1 to B-3.

In this case even this Forum directed both the Advocates to argue the matter on the next date of hearing or otherwise this Forum will post the matter for orders.  Even though this Forum granted a conditional order, both the Advocates are called absent.  After gone through the entire bundle, records and documents verified by us, and on merits we are delivering this judgment.

          Now the point for consideration whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of Rs.1,59,000/- along with interest @18% p.a. and to award damages of Rs.50,000/-.

          The case of the complainant is that he purchased 5,300 birds and paid a sum of Rs.22,956/- as premium amount and obtained policy  for 72 weeks valid from 11-03-1999 from 2.45 p.m. onwards.  The Opposite party issued a valid cover note Original No.042245 valid from 11-03-1999 .  The Doctors visited the Poultry farm and certified the cocks and its position from time to time and during first week of life period of the birds, 6 birds died and the Opposite party’s officer verified it, in the second week, 2 birds died, 3^rd week, 3 birds died, 4^th week one bird died, 5th week no bird died till 8^th week and thereafter in the 9^th week two birds died, 10^th week no bird died and 11^th week some diseases were attacked to the birds and 2479 birds have died and the doctors certified the same.  The Insurance Surveyor also visited the same and endorsed on the Bobcock book.  In the 12^th week 2479 birds were died and 666 alive and in the 12^th week the same was intimated to the Doctors and the Opposite party also verified the same and confirmation of the death of the birds in total 4634 were died from 1^st to 12^th week. Thereafter he lodged a complaint to the Opposite party and the Opposite party inspected the poultry farm and endorsed the same in the bobcock book and he waited for payment of the insurance amount.  But another Surveyor appointed by the Regional Office by name S.V.S.Reddy, he visited his shed on 17-09-99 after the 12^th week i.e., in the month of May, 1999.  The birds were died in the month of May, 1999 and the said Surveyor visited on 17-09-1999 and the said Surveyor called the explanation for the death of the birds and submitted his explanation.  The complainant purchased the birds by taking loan of Rs.2,50,000/- so the Opposite party informed that he was entitled 40% of the insured value for the death of the birds, if the birds are alive till 72 weeks so he is entitled for 40%, value of Rs.1,59,000/-.

          Thereafter he also issued a letter to Opposite party mentioning about the death of the birds and also he has taken a loan of Rs.2,50,000/-.  Thereafter the insurance company repudiated to pay the insurance amount for the death of the birds, then he filed this case before this Forum

          Written Version filed by the Opposite party stating that the complainant and the Doctor who gave certificate to the complainant they both of them colluded with each other and mentioned the abnormal price and the doctor gave false certificate for the death of the birds.  And further they stated that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount.

          After gone through the entire record, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get an amount because from the Opposite party side there are no any certain documents i.e., denial documents, on what basis they have repudiated the amount.   It is true as per the version of the complainant they stated that the complainant is entitled only for 40% of the death of the birds so as per that only the complainant claimed the amount from the Opposite party. The complainant he himself asked this Forum to pay 40% of the insured amount, so that is the reason only he is entitled for the same.  Whatever he asked the same we granted the same in favour of complainant.

          As per Ex.A-1 it is clear that the letter by Opposite party to the Complainant dated 17-07-2000 repudiating the claim and Ex.A-2 Miscellaneous Insurance Temporary Covered note dated 11-3-99, Ex.A-3 xerox copy of Poultry insurance claim farm, Ex.A-4 Death Certificate issued by Verternary Asst.Surgeon, Verterinary Dispensary, Mallikudurla, Dist.Warangal, Ex.A-5 Letter by M.V.Subba Reddy, Hyderabad to Complainant dated 17-09-1999.  In this case Exs.A-1 to A-4 are the important documents.  Ex.A-3 and Ex.A-4 Death Certificates clearly goes to show that how many birds affected and how many birds died and type of birds layer or hatcher and strain.  He has also given all the particulars in his certificate.  As per his certificate total number of birds affected 5286 and total number of birds died 4614.  As  per the Doctor Certificate Ex.A-4 it is clear that birds  died and clearly goes to show that the birds were died due to disease only but not anything . Since the birds died as per doctor certificate total birds 4614 died in between 1^st to 12^th week and also believing the same, we directed the Opposite party to pay the compensation amount.  Certainly the Insurance Company is liable to pay the Compensation. Because in this case, we did not find out any irregularity or anything from the complainant side. He already insured the birds with Opposite party and taken policy and after the death of the birds certainly the insurance company has to pay the policy amount for the death of the birds.  Since we do not find out any irregularity or any violation from the complainant side and it is a fit case to allow. 

          For the foregoing reasons given by us, we come to conclusion that the insurance Company is liable to pay the Compensation to the death of the birds.  Hence, we answered this point accordingly in favour of the complainant with regard to 2^nd point to what relief.

          To what relief:- The first point is decided in favour of the complainant against the Opposite party this point is also decided in favour of the complainant against the Opposite party.

          In the result the complaint is allowed and we direct the Opposite party to pay 40% of the insured value to the complainant i.e., Rs.1,59,000/- (Rs.One lakh fifty nine thousand only) to the complainant along with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e.,16-8-2000 till the date of realization, and also we award Rs.500/- (Rs.Five hundred only) towards costs.  We are not awarding any damages to the complainant.

          A month’s time is granted to the Opposite party for the compliance of the order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum today, the 13^th May, 2008. )

                                                       Sd/-                    Sd/-             Sd/-

                                                   Member              Member         President,

                                                       District Consumer Forum, Warangal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of Complainant                On behalf of Opposite Party

Deposition of PW-1 – Ch.Prabhakar Reddy    Affidavit on behalf of O.P. filed.

EXHIBITS MARKED

On behalf of complainant

1. Ex.A-1 Letter by Opposite party to complainant dt.17-7-2000.
2. Ex.A-2 Miscellaneous insurance Temporary cover note, dt.11-3-99.
3. Ex.A-3 Xerox copy of Poultry Insurance Claim Farm.
4. Ex.A-4  Death certificate issued by Veternary Asst.Surgeon, Veternary dispensary, Mallikuduria, Dist.Warangal.
5. Ex.A-5 Letter by M.V.Subba Reddy Hyderabad to complainant dt.17-9-99.
6. Ex.A-6 Letter by Complainant to M.V.Subba Reddy.
7. Ex.A-7 Bill of Royal traders, Warangal for Rs.5,000/- towards shifting charges.
8. Ex.A-8 Letter of N.Buchi Reddy, C/o Bhavani Poultry Farm.
9. Ex.A-9 Statement of birds of Royal Traders, Warangal.
10. Ex.A-10 Letter by opposite party to complainant, dt.31-3-2000.
11.  Ex.A-11 Babcock issued by Thirumala Hatcheries Pvt.Ltd., Warangal.

On behalf of Opposite Parties.

1.     Ex.B-1 is the Letter by Opposite party to M.V.Subba Reddy to Hyderabad, dt.30-7-1999.

2.     Ex.B-2 Letter by M.V.Subba Reddy to Opposite party along with statement of complainant.

3.     Ex.B-3 Report by M.V.Subba Reddy (Investigator).

                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                       President.