Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/30/2019

M.Muni Rathnam, S/o M.Pichaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Rep. by its Authorised Signatory, - Opp.Party(s)

M.Subrahmanyam, N.Rajagopal, P.Hari Prasad

24 Jan 2020

ORDER

         

 

                                                                                                Filing Date: 22-02-2019                                                                                                                                                                                      Order Date: 24-01-2020

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

Present: - Sri.T.Anand, President (FAC)

                                                                                                Smt.T.Anitha, Member

 

 FRIDAY THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

 

C.C.No.30/2019

Between

Mattapu Munirathnam, S/o. Late M. Pichaiah,

Hindu, aged about 56 years, Farmer, residing at

D.No. 1-74, Brahmanapalli, Kovanur Post,

KVB Puram Mandal, Chittoor District.                                        … Complainant

 

And

 

1.      United India Insurance Company Limited.,

D.No.10-196, Gandhi Road,

Chittoor Post & District, rep. by its

Authorized Signatory.

 

2.      District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Branch,

Srikalahasti Post & Mandal, Chittoor District,

Rep. by its Branch Manager.

 

3.      Kovanur PACS, Kovanur,

Office at KVB Puram Post & Mandal,

Chittoor District. Rep. by its Chief

Executive Officer.                                                             . . .  Opposite Parties

 

        This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 13.12.2019 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri.M.Subrahmanyam, counsel for the complainant, and Sri.G. Gajendra, counsel for the opposite party No.1 and opposite parties 2 and 3 are remained exparte having stood over till this day and for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

          This complaint is filed by the complainant under section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, complaining the deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties and prayed this Forum to direct the opposite parties to pay the assured  amount of         Rs. 45,000/- together with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of the claim till the date of realization, to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and for mental agony suffered by the complainant and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the complaint.

          2.The brief facts of the case are:  The complainant, who is a farmer and a member  borrower of 3^rd opposite party vide General No.1614, availed a loan of Rs.45,000/-(forty five thousands only) and purchased a female CBJ Milch Animal (Cow) under loan No.1090 by mortgaging his agricultural lands. The complainant further submits that the opposite parties 2 & 3 have jointly insured the said cow bearing tag No.31658 for Rs.45,000/- with opposite party No.1 to cover the risk of loan under co-insurance No.UIIC051601 along with two other borrowers for 100% insurance of Rs.1,35,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty five thousands only) i.e Rs.45,000/- for each animal vide ID No. MS DCCB SRIKALAHASTI PACS KOVANUR / 23027200286 and collected a consolidated premium of Rs.6986/- in total for policy No.0516014716P107097705 on 20.09.2016 .  The policy is valid from 29.08.2016 up to the mid night of 28.08.2017.

             The complainant further submits that the said insured animal died on 10.09.2016 due to sudden ill health and the same was intimated to the opposite party No.3. On the same day, the Veterinary Asst. Surgeon, Veterinary dispensary, Kovanur conducted post mortem and issued certificate. The complainant further submits that he submitted claim with all requisite documents to opposite party No.3 and same was forwarded  to opposite party No.1 on 20.09.2016 by opposite party No.3 on the name of the complainant with due acknowledgement. The complainant further submits that he approached the opposite parties several times for settlement of the claim but they failed to settle the claim. Hence he issued legal notice on 21.01.2019 to the opposite parties and same was served to opposite parties 1 and 2 but they fail to reply the same. The notice of opposite party No.3 returned un-served with an endorsement that the addressee is absent. Hence he filed the present complaint.

           3.  The opposite parties 1 and 3 made appearance and filed the written versions. The opposite party No.2 failed to appear before this forum even after receipt of the notice issued by this forum  hence called absent and set exparte.

         4.  The opposite party No. 1 made appearance and filed the written version by admitting the policy of the complainant and further submitted that , as per the claim form and postmortem certificate the cattle with tag No.31658 died with bronchopneumonia  disease on 29.08.2016 at 4.00 AM and postmortem was conducted on 29.08.2016 at 12.00PM. The policy covered for the said cattle under policy No. 0516014716P107097705 with a period of insurance from 29.08.2016 to mid night of 28.08.2017. Therefore, the policy was not in force on the date of the death of cow.

            The opposite party No.1 further submits that, as per the exceptions clause (2),  the policy does not cover the death directly or indirectly due to arising out of resulting from, any “disease contracted prior to commencement of risk. And provided always that - any claim arising out of disease or illness contracted by the animal during the first 15 days from commencement date of policy”. Therefore the claim is not maintainable and this opposite party is not liable to pay any claim to the complainant as prayed for and there is no deficiency in service on part of them and prayed this forum to dismiss the complaint  filed against them.

          5. The opposite party No.3 filed the written version by admitting the loan taken by the complainant from them and also admitted the policy taken by the complainant for his cow under loan No.1090. But the opposite party No.3 stated that, they are not having any knowledge, that the insured animal with tag no. 31658 died on 10.09.2016 and also stated that, the complainant never approached them with claim papers for processing the claim and the complainant intentionally sent the legal notice to kovanuru primary agricultural society instead of K.V.B.Puram where the opposite party No.3 is working  with a view to give trouble.  After the death of the cow, the complainant not followed due procedure and the opposite party came to know that he is not entitled to get claim. Actually this opposite party is no way responsible for the reasons mentioned in the complaint. If at all the complainant is entitle to any claim it is the duty of the opposite party 1 and 2  to settle the claim, but not this opposite party and prayed this forum to dismiss the complaint against them.

           6. The complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and Ex: A1 to A10 were got marked. On behalf of the opposite party No.1 R.Varalakshmi, W/o. R. Ravindranath, Senior Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited filed her evidence on affidavit and got marked Ex:B1 only. The opposite party No.3 after filing the written version failed to file the evidence on affidavit . Hence after granting several adjournments  the opposite party No.3 called absent and set exparte.  Both the complainant and opposite party No.1 filed their written arguments and oral arguments were heard.

         7. Now the point for consideration is:-

        Whether there is any deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties? If so, to what extent, the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

                    8.Point:-   There is no dispute regarding the policy taken by the complainant from the opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2 and 3 and same was admitted by them and also there is no dispute regarding the death of the cow of the complainant. After the death of the cow the complainant submitted his claim to the opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.3 with all requisite documents but after several requests made by the complainant they failed to settle the claim hence he filed the present complaint. In order to prove his case the complainant got marked Ex:A1 which is the pass book of Kisan Credit Card Cum Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Society Pass Book. Ex:A2 is the photo copy of co-insurance policy copy issued by opposite party No.1. Ex:A3 is office copy of Estock Claim Form Veterinary Certificate along with Postmortem Certificate dt:10.09.2016. Ex:A4 is photo copy of acknowledgment of opposite party No.1. Ex:A5 original copy of photograph of deceased animal. Ex:A6 is office copy of legal notice issued to all the opposite parties dt:21.01.2019. Ex:A7 is original copy of postal receipts (3 in No) dt:21.01.2019. Ex:A8 is original copy of postal acknowledgments of opposite parties 1 and 2 dt: 22.01.2019. Ex:A9 is returned postal cover along with acknowledgment due (dt: 22.01.2019 to 28.01.2019 party absent for 7 days return to sender) from opposite party No.3. Ex:A10 is original voter ID No. AP/20/135/573369 of the complainant.

                      9. The counsel for the complainant stated that even after receipt of notice the opposite parties 1 and 2 failed to settle the claim and also the 3^rd opposite party intentionally avoided to receive the legal notice dt:21.01.2019 and same was returned un-served and also stated that the 3^rd opposite party is a co-operative society office which cannot be remained closed for seven working days continuously, hence they have intentionally evaded to receive the notice. The counsel for the complainant further stated that, the opposite parties 2 and 3 being a joint policy holders failed to pursue the matter for the settlement of said insurance claim on behalf of the complainant and all the opposite parties are trying to evade the payment of the claim without valid reason till the date of the complaint. The opposite party No.1 neither repudiated the claim nor settle the claim.

                      The counsel for the opposite party No.1 argued that in the present case the claim is not maintainable as per exception to clause (2) of the conditions of the policy as per Ex.B1 policy does not cover the death directly or indirectly due to arising out of resulting from, any “disease contracted prior to commencement of risk and provided always that, any claim arising out of disease or illness contracted by the animal during the first 15 days from commencement date of policy”. In the present case also the policy period starts from 29.08.2016 to 28.08.2017. But the cow died on 10.09.2016 i.e., within 12 days of inception of the policy. Hence the claim is not maintainable and the complaint is liable to dismiss.

                     10. The counsel for the complainant further stated that the opposite party No.1 took the plea that, as per the exception clause (2), policy does not cover the death directly or indirectly resulting from, any “disease contracted prior to commencement of risk and provided always that any claim arising out of disease or illness contracted by the animal during the first 15 days from commencement date of policy” and also argued that no terms and conditions of the insurance policy were supplied and the said exception clause was not explained to the complainant  at the time of entering in to contract of policy before collecting the premium which is nothing but unfair trade practice on part of the opposite party No.1 because the condition itself is not a bonafide one as no one can predict the death of the healthy cattle. The counsel for the complainant relied upon a decision of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh, in F.A.No.38/2015 dated 09.03 2015. Between The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs. M/S Valecha Agriculture - venture. In the above case it was clearly mentioned that “it is evident from the post-mortem certificate, contents of which are duly fortified by the affidavit of Dr.D.M.Singh that, the cause of death was heart failure and the cow was not suffering from any disease. There is no evidence on record, that the cow suffered from some disease or illness”.  

                      But in the present case there is no evidence on record  to show that the cow died due to sudden ill health  and in Ex.A3 the post-mortem report it was clearly mentioned that, the cause of death was due to “Bronchopneumonia “ which is chronic one. If at all there are any bonafides on part of the complainant, he might have filed affidavit of the veterinary doctor to the effect that the death happened suddenly. But the complainant failed to prove the same. Hence the facts of the above cited case is not applicable to the case on hand. Hence we cannot accept the contention of the complainant, that the death of cow occurred suddenly without any supportive documents. Hence in the absence of documentary evidence we cannot take the view that there is deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties. Hence this point is answered against the complainant.

 

                    11. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No Costs.

          Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 24^th day of January, 2020.

           Sd/-                                                                                                           Sd/-                                                          

    Lady Member                                                                                                 President (FAC)

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: Sri.  Mattapu Munirathnam (Chief affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

RW-1: Smt. R. Vara Lakshmi  (Chief affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
1.	Original copy of KISSAN CREDIT CARD CUM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY PASS BOOK, MS DCCB Srikalahasthi PACS Kovanuru Branch, K.V.B Puram Mandal issued to the complainant by opposite party No.3.
2.	Photo copy of CO-INSURANCE POLICY bearing Policy No.  0516014716P107097705 issued by United India Insurance Company Limited, Gandhi Road, Chittoor -517 001, Andhra Pradesh for the period from 15:32 Hrs of 29.08.2016 to Midnight of 28.08.2017.  Dt: 29.08.2016.
3.	Office copy of ESTOCK CLAIM FORM VETERINARY CERTIFICATE along with POST-MORTEM CERTIFICATE. Dt: 10.09.2016. (Photo Copy).
4.	Photo copy of Acknowledgement of the opposite party No.1.
5.	Original copy of Photograph of Deceased Animal.
6.	Office copy of the Legal Notice issued to all the opposite parties. Dt: 21.01.2019.
7.	Original copy of Postal Receipts 3 in Number. Dt: 21.01.2019.
8.	Original copy of Postal Acknowledgements of opposite parties 1 and 2. Dt: 22.01.2019.
9.	Returned Postal Cover along with Ack. Due (Dt: 22.01.2019 to 28.01.2019 party absent for 7 days return to sender) from opposite party No.3.
10.	Original Voter ID No. AP/20/135/573369 of the complainant.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
1.	Certified true copy of INSURANCE POLICY bearing Policy No.  0516014716P107097705 issued by United India Insurance Company Limited, Gandhi Road, Chittoor -517 001, Andhra Pradesh for the period from 15:32 Hrs of 29.08.2016 to Midnight of 28.08.2017. Dt: 22.04.2019.

 

                                                                                                                                                          Sd/-

                                                                                                   President (FAC)

 

 

 

 

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

Copies to:  1) The Complainant, 

                  2) The Opposite parties.