Judgment:
A. Venkatarami Reddy, President:
1. The complaint is filed claiming a sum of Rs. 4,20,000/- under insurance policy with costs.
2. The complainant is a private company owning 8 fish tanks in Chinamille village, Tadepalligudem. West Godavari District. It insured with the opposite party under separate policies 10 for bunds of fish ponds in a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs and another for fish grown in the ponds in a sum of Rs.4,20,000/-on 12.8.1988 covering the period from 12.8.1988 to 11.8.1989 with bank clause. Due to heavy cyclone and floods that occurred in August, 1989 the fish tank bunds were damaged and all the fish in the tanks were washed away. The claim of the complainant towards bunds was settled. We are therefore not concerned with the same in this complaint. So far as the claim of the complainant for the loss of fish in the 7 tanks is concerned, the complainant immediately after the cyclone informed the opposite party about the loss of fish and requested for payment of compensation. In August, 1989 the opposite party appointed P.M. Mohan Rao and B. Nageswara Rao as Joint Surveyors. Sri Mohan Rao submitted his report. B. Nageswara Rao submitted a separate report. The opposite party by their letter on 22.6.1990 repudiated their liability on the ground that they have caused investigations and on the basis of the entire material available and the survey report and after considering the recommendations of the Surveyor the opposite party is satisfied that the fish in the insured tanks were harvested long before the alleged floods and a false declaration was given to the contrary and regretted their inability to satisfy the claim. The complainant therefore filed the complaint claiming the amount due under the insurance policy on the ground that the opposite party is not justified in repudiating their liability.
3. In the counter filed by the opposite party i.e.. New India Assurance Company Ltd., they admitted the insurance of the policy covering the 7 fish tanks for a sum of Rs. 4,20,000/-. But on a thorough investigation into the claim, it was established that the complainant suppressed the material facts and also violated various terms and conditions of the policy. During the investigation it came to light that the complainant disposed of the grown fish in the tanks before the cyclone and as the policy does not cover partial loss, the complainant is not entitled for payment of any amount. According to the opposite party, the Surveyor's report also reveals, the fact of partial disposal of the fish by the complainant and number of Demand Drafts were drawn in favour of the company towards the price of the fish disposed of by the complainant from the insured tanks. It was also their case that the complainant did not maintain the fish in proper condition and the fish was harvested in the month of July, 1989 itself prior to the advent of the cyclone. As the repudiation is based on the investigation and the Surveyor's report and therefore there is no deficiency in the service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is not maintainable.
4. Subsequently the complainant filed an I.A. claiming interest at 18%. For which a counter was filed by the opposite party denying their liability.
5. On behalf of the complainant Exs. A-1 to A-3 were filed and no oral evidence was adduced. On behalf of the opposite party Dr. P. Dharma Raju, Veterinary Officer with the opposite party was examined and his affidavit was also filed, and Exs. B-l to B-8 were marked. The opposite party also filed material papers of 45 pages.
6. The insurance coverage of Rs.4,20,000/- of 7 fish ponds and its subsistence at the time of cyclone and the occurrence of the cyclone and floods are not in dispute. The only controversy between the parties is whether the complainant sold away the fish from the ponds in April /July, 1989. Even if the complainant sold only a portion of the fish from the ponds, since the policy does not cover partial loss, the opposite party is not liable to pay any amount under the policy.
7. It is the case of the opposite party that they have appointed immediately on coming to know of the loss two Surveyors and as there was loss reported by number of fish farmers the Insurance Company appointed Deshpande Associates to investigate into the claims. According to the opposite party, the Surveyor's report as well as the investigation report submitted by Deshpande Associates after detailed enquiry at Howarh revealed that the complainant sold away some fish from these ponds at Howrah in April / June, 1989. Therefore the only question that arises for consideration is whether the opposite party repudiated its liability bona fide after due enquiry and investigation into the claim of the complainant.
8. Ex. A-1 is the letter dated 29.7.1987 addressed by the complainant to the Deputy General Manager, A.P. State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Hyderabad, financier of the complainant. It was stated in the said letter that the complainant normally will get fish and sell the same in September and that therefore the installment amount due to the bank would be paid before 30th September every year. Ex. A-2 dated 22.6.1990 is the repudiation letter. Ex. A-3 dated 9.7.1990 is the letter addressed by the complainant to the opposite party. In the said letter which, is a reply to the letter of repudiation, it was stated that the fish ponds belonged to the complainant and the fish is harvested from the month of August as the climatic conditions during that period are favourable for the purpose of harvesting the fish and therefore the allegation that the fish were harvested long before the cyclone is totally misconceived. This is the only evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant.
9. The opposite party examined its Veterinary Officer as R.W. 1. He stated in his evidence that the policy covers total loss and not partial loss, as detailed in Condition No.9 of the policy. He was appointed as one of the Doctors included in the team constituted by the General Insurance Corporation of India to investigate into the fish claim cases due to cyclone. According to him Ex. B-2 is the extract of information collected by him along with other Investigator Dr. Shankariah and as per the investigation the complainant's name is found showing that he had drawn some D. Ds. in the name of K.S. Raju i.e., whom they believe to be Mr. K. Satyanarayana Raju of the complainant's company. It was further stated that the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant basing on the report of B. Nageswara Rao. Ex.B-4 report of Mohan Rao was not accepted as he has not answered all the points. Exs. B-5 to B-8 are the parts of report submitted by Nageswara Rao. At page 27 of material papers is the report submitted by Deshpande Associates which shows that the complainant disposed of some fish prior to the cyclone. In the cross-examination it was suggested to him that he is deposing at the instance of his superior officers only with a view to repudiate the claim, which was denied by him. He further asserted that he made enquiries as to the persons who encashed the demand drafts. He admitted that he had no personal knowledge of the partial sale of fish by the complainant. Ex.B-2 i.e., extract of information collected by R.W.1 shows that lorries were loaded with fish on 20.7.1989, 20.6.1989, 9.6.1989, 12.7.1989 and 14.6.1989. It shows the name of K.S. Raju of Ganapavaram and at some places name of K. Satyanarayana Raju as having sold fish at Howrah. Ex. B-4 is the report submitted by one of the Joint Surveyor Mohan "Rao appointed for the purpose of submitting a report with regard to the loss of fish. He stated that generally fish will be harvested in Kolleru area before July as the area completely gets water logged posing difficulties in communication and transportation. But from a scrutiny of the extracts and Surveyor's report the complainant seems to be harvested its stock in August. He therefore submitted a report estimating the loss at Rs. 2,85,600/-. B. Nageswara Rao did not agree with the report of the Mohan Rao and submitted a separate report on 29.3.1990. As could be seen from page 11 of the material papers filed by the opposite party, in the said report he referred to the lorry trip sheets and check posts, having details of way bill in respect of AAI-2799 which was carrying 52 baskets of white fish belonging to SVL Ganapavaram to Howrah. He also verified the exempted goods register entry at the check posts. According to him, he enquired the local fish farmers etc., who stated that the fish was harvested during April-May-June from the insured fish tanks. Basing on that he reported that the complainant harvested the fish from the fish tanks during the months of April to June, 1989. Ex. B-5 dated 8.4.1989 is the bill of loading which shows that K.S.N. Raju sent fish from Ganapavaram (V) to Howrah. Ex. B-6 bearing the same date also shows that the fish was sent from Ganapavaram to Howrah. Ex. B-7 dated 21.6.1989 shows that SVL Ganapavaram sent fish through truck bearing No. AAI 2799 to Howrah. This probably is an abbreviation for SVL Food Products of the complainant. In the material papers filed Sri Siva Rama Raju, Managing Director gave an affidavit stating that they did not harvest any fish in July, 1989. In the material papers at page 27, we also find the Deshpande Associates investigation report dated 16.10.1989, at page 37 of the material papers, wherein it was stated that from the records of the various fish merchants at Howrah on 1.6.1989 SVL, Bhimavaram, SVL Ganapavaram and again on 19.6.1989 and 23.8.1989 SVL Ganapavaram and SVL Bhimavaram sold the fish at Howrah. In the absence of any material to show that the SVL is the abbreviation to some other company than SVL Food Products, we consider that the reference is only to the complainant.
10. Thus a perusal of the reports by the Surveyors and the investigation report of Deshpande shows that the opposite party bona fide repudiated their liability relying on the investigation report of Deshpande as well as that of Nageswara Rao, and other material on record. We are therefore satisfied that the repudiation by the opposite party is bona fide and there is no deficiency of service on their part.
11. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Complaint dismissed.