"The respondent herein is having a P

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES RED RESSAL COMMISSION, ANDHRA PRADESH:

HYDERABAD

A. y'enkatarami Reddy, President and Pothuri Venkateswara Rao, Member

Branch Manager. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Am. - Appellants

versus

Yeluri Harmadha Babu & Ors. - Respondents

C.D. Appeal No. 129192

Dccided on 29.1.1993

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 12 & 17 . Insurance policy for poultry birds Birds washed away during policy period .

Claim rejected by insurance on the ground that date of coverage as 29.6.1990 was mistake for 15.4.90 and thus birds were not covered by the policy on the date of incident• No steps were taken to correct the date prior to the incident• Plea is liable to be rejected - Report of the surveyor that birds were notin the shed on the date of incident cannot be relied upon as the surveyor visited the place much after the cyclone - Appellants are liable to indemnify the entire loss covered under the policy.

(Paras 7 to 10)

1993( 1 ) . Branch Manager, New India Assuranc

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Counsel for the parties:

For the Appellant - M. Srinivasa Rao.

For the Respondent - P. Rajagopala Rao.

iMPORTANT POINT

Insurance CQmpany cannot put up a plea tha there was a mistake in the coverage date in chI policy when no steps were• taken of correct tha mistake before the incident took place.

ORDER

"The respondent herein is having a Poultry farm. He has insured 1050 birds with the appellant for a sum of Rs. 26,250.00 and paid premium of Rs. 1,260.00. As it could be seen from the cover note, the policy covers the period from 8.9.1989 to 29.6.1990. Alleging in the complaint that due to un-precedence cyclone in the State from 8.5.1990 to 10.5.1990, the poultry shed was damaged and all the bird were washed away, the complainant preferred a claim with the appellant for payment of an amount of Rs. 26,250.00 covered by the Policy. He also claimed Rs. 4,000.00 for loss of feed; Rs. 15,500.00 by way of damages to the shed and a compensation of Rs. 10,000.00. The claim was contested by the opposite parties 1 and 2, that is, the Insurance Company/Appellant(herein) mainly on the ground that in the insurance coverage the last date of coverage-26.9 .1990 was wrongly mentioned for 15.4.1990. Normally the insurance coverage will be only for a period of seventy two(72) weeks from the date of the chicks brought into existence. To the instant case, as the insurance policy was taken when the chicks were of 39 weeks old, the coverage could only be up to 15.4.1990 and not 29.6.1990-as mentioned in the policy and, therefore, they are not liable to pay. It was also pleaded that on the expiry of 72 weeks, that is, by 15.4.1990, the birds would have been sold and on the date of actual date of cyclone, there was no bird in the shed.

2. Before the District Forum, number of exhibits were marked as Exs. A-1 to A-7 for the complainant and Exs. B-1 to B-14 on behalf of the Insurance Company. No oral evidence was adduced.

3. On a consideration of the insurance policy, the District Forum found that the policy covers from 8.9.1989 to 29.6.1990. It did not accept the plea of the opposite party that mistakenly the date was mentioned as 29.6.1990 instead of 15.4.1990 mainly on the ground that even if it is a mistake it was not corrected by the date of the cyclone. It also held that except at the time of filing of the counter in the Consumer Dispute, at no point of time earlier to that, the opposite party informed the complainant that there was a mistake in the date 29.6.1990. Even when the complainant's wife has written letter to the Insurance Company stating that the policy covers the cyclone and claiming the damage, the insurance company did not inform them that the date 29.6.1990 was mentioned by mistake instead of 15.4 .1990. The District Forum, therefore, rejected that contention.

4. With regard to the second submission that actually on the date of cyclone, there were no birds in the shed, there is no material on behalf of the Insurance