AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS revision petition arises out of the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh.
THE facts in brief which led the complainant to approach the District Forum are as under. The complainant is an export oriented unit engaged in the business of export of prawns/shrimps having their farm in Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh. The complainant got the ponds insured, i.e. pond Nos. 23 to 29 for the period 6.10.1994 to 11.1.1995 vide policy Nos. 4761140402480 to 4761140402486. The sum insured in respect of pond No. 26 was Rs. 3,53,300/- and the premium paid was Rs. 7,568/-. Because of cyclone and heavy rainfall in the first week of November, 1994, the salinity was lowered with the result the prawns in the ponds died and the complainant suffered the loss. This fact was noticed by the complainant at 5.00 p.m. on 23rd November, 1994 and on being informed the opposite parties deputed a Surveyor. On a perusal of the record placed before us it appears that for two years the Insurance Company kept quite, and through the copy of the letter dated 16.2.1996, which was addressed by the Surveyor to the opposite parties, the complainant had been informed that the proximate cause of death of the shrimps was ''disease'' and not the cyclone. On 3.12.1996, the opposite party No. 2 under the directions of opposite party No. 1 repudiated the claim on the following grounds. (1) the claim intimation was given to the opposite party No. 2 after a period of 12 hours in contravention of para 10 of the policy; (2) taking of the policy after the date of stocking instead of from the date of stocking is an apprehension of the attack of the disease; (3) operation of the perils before commencement of the policy; (4) the persons managing the farms are not fully aware of prawn culture and are not competent which has led to the spread of the disease.
THIS had led the complainant to approach the District Forum with a complaint claiming Rs. 3,19,863/- along with interest at the rate of 24% from 23.11.1994 and Rs. 75,000/- for compensation. Both the parties had filed affidavits by way of evidence before the District Forum. Upon hearing both the parties, adverting to the evidence filed by way of affidavits along with the papers placed before it, the District Forum held that the requirement of giving notice within a period of 12 hours is only directory and not mandatory; the complainant has not suppressed any material facts in the proposal form; it cannot be said that the staff of the complainant was not fully aware of the prawn culture; it cannot be said that the complainant had failed to furnish particulars regarding condition of the ponds and health of the prawns; the complaint was filed within the limitation; the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum, and lastly that the claim of the complainant clearly comes within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and hence the complainant need not approach the Civil Court. In view of the above discussion and after deducting Rs. 52,759.47 which is 20% compulsory excess from Rs. 2,63,797.33 which was assessed by the Joint Surveyors, the District Forum directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 2,11,037.87. A sum of Rs. 1,000/- was also awarded towards costs. The District Forum had also observed that in case the aforesaid amount is not paid within two months from the date of the order, the Insurance Company was directed to pay interest @ 12% on the aforesaid amount, till the date of payment.
FEELING not satisfied with the order of the District Forum both the parties went in appeal to the State Commission. The State Commission upon hearing the parties dismissed the appeal of the Insurance Company on the ground that it requires no interference, and that of the complainant on the ground that the complainant could not show how the amount awarded by the District Forum is insufficient or inadequate. Feeling dissatisfied with the order of the State Commission the complainant has come in revision before us with a prayer to award interest at 18% from the date of the claim, i.e. 23rd November, 1994 and compensation for deficiency in service with costs. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing on both sides. We have also gone through the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission. We are of the opinion that the District Forum would have allowed interest at 12% p.a. on the amount awarded from two months after the date of the Surveyor''s report, i.e. from 1st October, 1995. We order accordingly, i.e. direct the opposite party to pay interest to the complainant at 12% p.a. from 1st October, 1995 on the amount awarded by the District Forum. We also award costs assessed at Rs. 5,000/-. With the above observations the revision petition is allowed to the extent aforesaid and the impugned order is accordingly modified.