PAGORA FARMS PVT. LIMITED vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

DESIRABLE, it is to pen down a common order in all these actions.

THE complainant as well as the opposite parties are one and the same in all these actions. This apart, the pith and substance of the grievance of the individual complaints and the nature of the defence taken by the opposite parties in all these actions are also one and the same. A common order, if rendered, will avoid the unnecessary repetition of facts in a jarring fashion. We are, therefore, inclined to render a common order in all these actions. The appellant/complainant is one M/s. Pagora Farms (P) Limited, 41, 2nd Street, Kumaran Colony, Vadapalani, Madras-600 026. The respondents/opposite parties are : (1) M/s. United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Head Office, 24, Whites Road, Royapettah, Madras-600 014; and (2) M/s. United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Divisional Office, 169, Mint Street, Madras-600 079.

All these appeals respectively arise out of the common order dated 20th day of August, 1997 passed in O.P. Nos. 279, 278, 276 and 287/96 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South) in dismissing the individual complaints and directing the parties to bear their own costs.

THE complainant took Brackish Water Prawn Insurance Policy with the opposite parties for a period of 5 months, that is to say crop period, commencing from June, 1994. The area covered by the policy of insurance in each case is different. The sum assured is also different. The policy covered the loss occurred by outbreak of disease in the prawn culture area. Under the policy, the opposite parties undertook to pay to the complainant-insured 80% of the value of the prawns as on the date of loss as per the valuation mentioned therein. There was an outbreak of disease affecting the culture of prawns in various areas covered by the policy of insurance.

THE moment outbreak of disease was informed to the opposite parties, a Surveyor, it appears, had been appointed to estimate the loss. THE Surveyor appointed estimated the loss as per the conditions of the policy. THE estimated loss according to the Surveyor had also been paid to the complainant in all these actions. The complainant instituted various complaints stating that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties inasmuch as the amount paid by the opposite parties representing the loss incurred by him had not been properly assessed and paid accordingly. The Forum below after taking into consideration the materials placed on record dismissed the complaints directing the parties to bear their own costs.

AGGRIEVED by the orders as above, the appellant/complainant resorted to the present actions by engaging a Counsel of his choice namely, learned Counsel Mr. M. Muraleedhara Reddy.

PROCESS had been served on the respondents/opposite parties and they entered appearance through a Counsel of their choice namely, learned Counsel Mr. M.B. Raghavan. All these appeals for hearing came up today. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant is called absent and no representation was made on his behalf. The fact that the said learned Counsel was absent does not mean that we cannot dispose of these appeals, of course after hearing learned Counsel representing the respondents/opposite parties and on perusal of the materials placed on record.

Even at the outset, we may point out that there are no merits in all these appeals and they deserve to be dismissed. A perusal of the records reveals that the Surveyor assessed the loss as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The policy itself contains a table indicating the manner and method of assessment for the quantification of the loss. The crop period of 5 months is divided into 10 fortnightly periods. If loss occurred during the first fortnightly period, the loss is to be assessed and estimated at 22% of the sum assured. If the loss occurred on the 7th fortnightly period, the loss is to be assessed and estimated at 62% of the sum assured. Thus the assessment and estimated loss progressively increases from the 1st to 10th fortnight and on the 10th fortnightly period, the assessment and estimation of loss is fixed at 100% of the sum assured. These things apart, we are able to perceive from the terms and conditions of the policy, the percentage assessment and quantification of the loss have to be computed not only with reference to the fortnightly period within which the loss occurred but also the extent of the area affected. The Surveyor appointed to this case took all these aspects of the matter into consideration while assessing and quantifying the loss. The loss so assessed and quantified had admittedly been paid by the opposite parties to the complainant.

THE complainant''s grievance, it appears, that the assessment and quantification of the loss as estimated by the Surveyor is shorn of reality of the situation and as a matter of fact he wants the loss to be quantified on the basis of average body weight of the prawns at the time of damage. This sort of grievance of the complainant is not finding support from the terms and conditions in the policy. THE Forum below accepting in toto the Surveyor''s report dismissed the complaints. While doing so, it also relied upon the observation made by the National Commission in II (1992) CPJ 493 (NC). THE observation made is as follows : "Once it is found that the insurer has duly considered all the relevant aspects and circumstances and taken a decision in good faith, as to whether the claim put forward by the insured should be allowed to any extent, it cannot be said that there has been deficiency in service on the part of the insurer. In such case, if the insured is dissatisfied he will have to seek redressal either by resort to arbitration on by institution of a civil suit." The common order of the Forum below in the dismissal of the complaints on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases cannot at all be stated to be not sustainable on facts and in law. Thus all the appeals deserve to be dismissed.

IN fine, all the appeals namely, A.P. Nos. 667/97, 775/97, 776/97 and 777/97 fail and they are accordingly dismissed. We, however, make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Appeals dismissed.