M.SURYA NARAYANA GUPTA Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.
LAWS(APCDRC)-2003-2-20
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on February 27,2003

M.SURYA NARAYANA GUPTA Appellant
VERSUS
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. Respondents

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 agony etc.
(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.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.