THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHADRAK.
Present- Sri Raghunath Kar, President
Sri Basanta Kumar Mallick ,Member
Afsara Begum, Member
Dated the 23rd day of October, 2017
C.D case No.41 of 2015
Smt. Kalpana Das
W/o Basanta Das
At/Po-Tihidi
Dist- Bhadrak
Versus
- Branch Manager
Odisha Gramya Bank
Paliabindha Branch
At/Po- Paliabindha
Dist- Bhadrak
- Manager
New India Assurance Co.Ltd
Bhadrak Branch
At-Kacheri Bazar
P.o- Bhadrak
P.s- bhadrak (T)
Dist-Bhadrak
Advocate for complainant- Sri R.k. Nayak & Associates
Advocate for the OP No-1- Sri R.P.Roy & Associates
Advocate for OP No-2- Sri A.K Chand
Date of hearing – 29.03.2017
Date Of Order- 23.10.2017
SRI BASANTA KUMAR MALLICK, MEMBER
This dispute arises out of a complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service.
The back ground facts disclosed in the complaint are to the effect that the complainant belongs to rural area having inadequate knowledge of rules and regulations of different matters. Being instigated by the OP Bank, complainant applied for a loan to purchase a milch cow which was sanctioned by OP NO-1 and supplied the cow to the borrower (complainant) after execution of relevant documents. As a statutory requirement the cow so supplied to the complainant was tagged by the V.A.S(BVO) Tihidi vide tag No-NIA/550800/ 19838 after which the live stock was insured under the direct supervision of the Banker (OP NO-1)with New India Insurance Co. Ltd, Bhadrak Branch (OpNo-2). The complainant further added that the insured cow suddenly succumbed to death while grazing in front of her dwelling house and the complainant immediately informed the VAS about the death of the cow who also conducted postmortem of the cow. Apart from this the OP Bank also duly informed OP No-2 about the death of the cow. As the cow was insured for a sum of Rs 25,000/-, complainant submitted a claim form duly filled in to OP-2along with all requisites and the certificate of VAS mentioning the cause of death. But the insurance company( OP NO-2) did not settle the claim despite repeated requests and finally repudiated the claim on the ground “No Tag No Claim”. When the claim was repudiated by insurance company (OP NO-2), complainant ran to the Branch Manager, Odisha Gramya Bank, Paliabindha Branch about settlement of claim as the said insurance company was the choice of the Bank but not the borrower (Complainant) but did not yield any positive result. Finding no other alternative, complainant filed this dispute praying for a direction to OPs for settlement of claim along with compensation and cost.
OP NO-1, although appeared through advocate but did not file any written version and was set ex- parte. OP NO-2(The insurer) resisted the claim and contested the case and submitted written version in stating that the case is not maintainable as because the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of CP Act and the answering OP has not caused any deficiency of service. It is further stated that the complainant failed to perform his part of contract as regards to production of tag or providing information immediately soon after loss of the tag to OP NO-2.Had the information about loss of tag submitted to the OP (insurer), arrangements could have been made to get the cow retagged . OP NO-2 claims to have issued letter to the complainant and Block veterinary officer repeatedly advising to submit the tag which was not complied and resultantly the claim raised by the complainant was repudiated.
After going through the complaint and written version of OP(insured) it is ascertained that the dispute between the complainant and OPs is about submission of tag by complainant for settlement of claim. It is an admitted fact that the complainant was a borrower of OP No-1 in respect of acquisition of milky cow and OP NO-2 was the insurer of the said live stock which was tagged by V.A.S of Tihidi block and the tag number is also reflecting in the insurance policy.
The complainant in course of hearing submitted that the cow was insured with tag number which was done by the banker who financed the cow. It is also a fact that OP NO-1(banker) has retained the policy certificate in it’s office without communicating a copy to the complainant . Since the complainant, being rural lady, having no knowledge about the terms and conditions of the policy . Had she been aware of the procedure, she could have informed the insurer about missing of the tag instead of informing the banker. However the complainant is not at fault in discharging her duties. She has informed the banker on the day of death of the cow and has also submitted the claim form along with requisites. On the other hand OP NO-2 pleaded that according to contract, tag is required for settlement of the claim without which the claim would be treated as “No claim” OP No-2 has also repeatedly informed the banker and the complainant for submission of the tag of the cow but both have failed to comply which led to repudiation. Hence OP NO-2 has not neglected in any manner which may attribute to deficiency of service. Complainant further argued that the policy so issued for the insurance of cow was not in the name address of the complainant and she was unaware as to whom the policy was issued. She has acted upon according to the instruction of the banker with regards to informing the VAS for postmortem of the dead cow. The VAS of Tihidi Block has also responded immediately to conduct postmortem and accordingly certified the cause of the death of live stock in the claim form with his seal and signature. It is a fact that the tag number, description of cow and the owner of the cow is mentioned in the policy certificate and the complainant is the owner of the said dead live stock (cow)which is certified by VAS. There is no doubt that the dead cow bearing tag NO-NIA/550800/19838 belongs to the complainant. It is also certified by the VAS that the said cow died due to poisoning, may be due to snake bite. Denying the settlement of claim by OP NO-2 on the plea of non-submission of tag is intentional in order to repudiate the claim. Hence such action of OP NO-2 amounts to deficiency of service.
Heard and perused materials on record. It is observed that OP NO-1 has initiated the insurance policy with OP NO-2 and the policy certificate so issued by insurer was kept with OP NO-1 without communicating a copy of the policy to the complainant . In such a situation complainant did not get the scope to know the policy conditions and about the procedure of settlement of claim. Secondly the cow with tag number and other descriptions as reveals from the policy matches with the certificate of the VAS who administered postmortem. This clearly indicates that the cow died due to poisoning, most probably due to snake bite , belongs to complainant and the complainant is entitled to compensation. The facts and circumstances leading to repudiation of claim is due to negligence of OPs. Therefore both the OPs are equally responsible & liable for augmentation of loss of the complainant. Hence it is ordered:-
ORDER
The complainant be and the same is allowed against OPs on contest. Both the OPs are directed to pay Rs 25,000/- as claim Rs 5000/- as compensation and Rs 2000/- as cost of litigation equally @50:50 ratio to the complainant within 30day from the date of issue of this order failing which interest @9% with quarterly rests shall be charged from the date of repudiation to the date of payment.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this 23rd of October, 2017 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
(Raghunath Kar) ( Afsara Begum) (Basanta KUMAR MALLICK)
PESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Dictated & corrected by me
Sri basanta kumar mallick, member
