AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
-THE complainant is the proprietrix of a poultry farm which contains grower sheds, layer sheds, poultry birds both layers and growers. She insured 12,500 birds under policy bearing No. 4761080000927 on 3.2.1998 till the age of 72 weeks for the birds. THE birds are ''Layers Bovans''.
ACCORDING to the policy conditions, no claim can be made during the waiting period from 3.2.1998 to 17.2.1998 and thereafter the liability of the company is to indemnify the complainant to an extent of 80 per cent of the value of the birds if death occurs during the period of coverage. While so the birds were healthy upto 24th week and during 25th week i.e., between 8.3.1998 and 14.3.1998, 480 birds died. The same was informed to the opposite party. Again during the next week i.e., from 15.3.1998 to 21.3.1998, 2717 birds and from 22.3.1998 to 28.3.1998, 497 birds died, on all the occasions due to ''fowl cholera'' and the opposite party was informed on all occasions. A surveyor was appointed who inspected the dead birds and submitted his report.
Again during the 39th week i.e., from 17.5.1998 to 23.5.1998, 2669 birds died due to sun-stroke. The same was intimated to the opposite party. Surveyor as well as the Divisional Manager of the opposite party inspected the sheds on 19.5.1998. In the 40th weeks i.e., from 24.5.1998 to 30.5.1998, 385 birds died due to sun-stroke and 1322 birds in the 41st week and 1068 birds in the 42nd week for the same reason and accordingly the opposite party was intimated and the surveyor of the opposite party inspected and submitted his report. As the summer during 1998 was very severe and the temperature was between 42 and 49 degrees Centigrade, it resulted in the death of the birds. In all, the complainant lost 9,138 birds, as the claim was not settled, she claims at the rate of Rs. 75 per bird which comes to Rs. 5,48,280/- to be paid with interest at 24 per cent per annum from 10.6.1998 till payment together with damages of Rs. 1,00,000/- and costs of Rs. 5,000/-.
IN the written version filed by the opposite party while admitting that it issued the policy bearing No. 4761080000927 and the same is in force from 3.2.1998 but denied that death of the birds was due to ''fowl cholera'' or due to ''sun-stroke''. It appointed a Surveyor and basing on his report, the claim was repudiated. An investigator was also appointed who submitted his report on 28.10.1998. As per his report there are altogether 5 policies in National INsurance Company Limited, Divisional Office at Eluru and one policy with United INdia INsurance Company Limited, Nidadavolu. According to the complainant she has purchased 12,500 birds of 20th week under the policy in question from Mr. Ethara Krishnaiah but according to the latter the complainant got only the capacity for 2,100 birds and he has not sold any birds to anyone since January, 1997. The complainant has not produced the records maintained by her showing day-to-day mortality, culling vaccination particulars, feed consumption, egg production, de-beaking and de-worming particulars. The investigator further observed that the insured lodged claims with all companies filed false/fake purchase letters and invoices. She submitted false statements to different companies in different manner on different dates regarding stock position and insurance particulars. The birds insured with the opposite party are not existing as no proof is submitted for purchase of the birds. The complainant filed Exs. A1 to A4 besides filing her affidavit and the opposite party filed Exs. B1 to B8 besides filing the affidavit of the opposite party through its legal officer/manager.
NOW the point that arises for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in repudiating the policy? The insurance policy marked Ex. B1 which is valid from 3.2.1998 upto 72 weeks is not disputed. Total number of birds covered under the policy are 12,500 and the type of birds are shown as Layers Bovans. The birds were insured at the rate of Rs. 75 per chick and in case of death the insured will indemnify to an extent of 80 per cent. There is no dispute with regard to these facts. According to the complainant as and when the birds started dying either due to ''fowl cholera'' or due to ''sun-stroke'' she went on informing the opposite party and a Surveyor was appointed by name, G.V.V. Satyanarayana. The report of Mr. G.V.V. Satyranarayana, marked Ex. B6, shows that the insured told him that he purchased 20th week birds from E. Krishnaiah of Kaldhari and recommended for payment of Rs. 1,56,720 subject to terms and conditions of the policy and the invoice and purchase letters were not submitted before him by the insured. The investigator, Mr. B.V.N. Reddy, submitted his report under Ex. B8 wherein he also stated that according to the insured 12,500 Bovans birds of 20th week were purchased from E. Krishnaiah on 5.2.1998. According to Mr. Edara Krishnaiah, he has a deep litter shed of size 24'' x 285'' of capacity 2,100 birds in Kaldhari and at present there are 49th week Bob cock birds and he has not sold any birds to anyone since January, 1997. Though a letter alleged to be issued by E. Krishnaiah was enclosed to his report but the same is not filed before this Commission. Be that as it may. According to the report Ex. B8, the complainant in C.D. No. 38/1999 purchased 10,150 Bob cock birds of 29th week from Mr. K. Suryanarayana, Tanuku and covered them under policy No. 4761080000925 but according to Mr. Suryanarayana he has not sold the birds and signature of Mr. Suryanarayana does not tally with the disputed signature. So also 13,125 chicks and 15,750 chicks covered by policy No. 4761080000928 were purchased from N. Viswanatham, Vadluru but there is no supporting evidence for this purchase.
THAT apart the complainant did not maintain flock records properly or shown correctly day-to-day mortality, culling vaccination particulars, feed consumption, egg production, de-beaking and de-worming particulars. Even change of birds from one shed to another was done without intimation to the insurer. The birds insured with the opposite party company are not existing on the basis of the proof submitted for purchase which is fake and false. The report of Mr. V.V.S. Sitaram, Surveyor, Eluru also proves that the claim is fraudulent.
ON the basis of this report as well as the report of the Surveyor, the opposite party came to the conclusion that the claim of the complainant is not established and as such we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as the complainant failed to adduce any evidence to show that the dispute invoices, vouchers, bills and letters are genuine. The complaint, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.
However, as there is dispute with regard to invoices, letters, bills, etc., we are of the opinion that the complainant may approach the Civil Court and establish the genuineness of those documents by adducing sufficient proof. C.D. Nos. 38/1999 and 39/1999:
SINCE opposite party as well as evidence in all these C.Ds. is common, we are of the opinion that these C.Ds. also should be disposed of following the judgment in C.D. No. 37/1999. In view of the judgment in C.D. No. 37/1999, for the same reasons these 2 C.Ds. also fail and they are accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances without costs. Complaints dismissed.