M.SURYA NARAYANA GUPTA Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
M.SURYA NARAYANA GUPTA
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.
Click here to view full judgement.
P.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU,PRESIDENT -
(1.) THE complainant
obtained a Miscellaneous Accident Insurance Policy for 8 fish tanks
spread over to an extent of 8 Hectares in Srirampuram village under
Policy No. 4761080501733 for a sum of Rs. 9,60,000/ - from 15.12.1994 to
19.2.1995. While so the prawn was affected by disease on 7.2.1995 and he immediately intimated the same by telegram and also by telephone to the
opposite parties 2 and 3 who appointed a Surveyor and the latter
conducted the survey from 8.2.1995 to 13.2.1995. Though the Surveyor in
his report dated 8.5.1995 reported that there is loss of crop due to
Vibriosis disease and estimated the loss at Rs. 4,97,101/ - the
opposite parties instead of settling the case repudiated the same by
their letter dated 27.11.1996 on untenable grounds. Hence the complainant
filed this complaint claiming a sum of Rs. 10,46,240/ - together with
interest at 24 per cent per annum besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - for mental
(2.) THE opposite parties in their counter while admitting the issuance of the policy stated that though the claim arose on 7.2.1995 the
complainant intimated them on 8.2.1995. As there was no intimation within
12 hours of the occurrence the Company is absolved of its liability to pay any amount. Further there was no intimation in writing which is also
mandatory. The complainant has not taken insurance from the date of
stocking. The complainant is also aware of the prevalent conditions which
are prone to disease in the coastal area. Apprehending the imminent risk
he obtained the policy which is not permissible. The Surveyor also
observed contamination of water, cyclone, drop in salinity and
temperature which contribute for the attack of disease and as such they
are not liable for payment of any amount under the policy.
The complainant besides filing his affidavit filed Exs. A -1 to A -21 while the opposite parties filed counter affidavit of their Administrative Officer and marked Exs. B -1 to B -4.
(3.) THE point, therefore, that arises for consideration is, whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and
if so, to what extent ?
The policy in question is not disputed. There is also no dispute that the policy came into force from 15.12.1994 to 19.2.1995 for
a sum of Rs. 9,60,000/ - on the date of stocking is also not disputed as
20.9.1994 which is also mentioned in the policy. Ex. A -1 also contains the date of stocking as 20.9.1994.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.