IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA

Monday the 27^th day of March, 2023.

                                      Filed on 07.11.2022

Present

1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar  BSc.,LL.B  (President )
2. Smt.P.R Sholy, B.A.L, LLB (Member)
   •  

CC/No.286/2022

between

Complainant:-                                                        Opposite parties:-

Smt.Bindhu R                                                1.      Divisional Manager

W/o Ajithkumar                                                      United India Insurance Co.Ltd.

SS Puram                                                                Sarada Shopping Complex

Mararikulam South Panchayath                               Alappuzha

Ward 17, KattoOr P.O.                                            (Adv.Hemalatha.R)

Alappuzha                                                    

                                                                      2.      The Manager

(Adv.Nimitha Anwar)                                             SBI, Pathirappally Branch

                                                                               Pathirapally P.O.

                                                                               Alappuzha

                                                                               (Exparte)

O R D E R

SRI. S.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)

Complaint filed under Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Material averments briefly stated are as follows:-

Complainant is eking her livelihood  by conducting a cattle farm. During 2010 complainant  availed a loan of Rs. 4 lakhs from SBT (Now SBI) for purchasing  7 cows and 3 buffalos.  The loan was insured with the 1^st opposite party M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd.  and the premium was collected from the complainant.  As a security for the loan property belonging to Santha Sivanandan  who is the mother in law of the complainant was given.

2.       After availing the loan complainant purchased 7cows and 3 buffalos.  and constructed a  cattle shed and installed biogas plant.  An amount of Rs.2,13,945/- was  repaid to the loan  account till 2015.  An amount of Rs. 1 lakh was received as subsidy from NABARD and thus an amount of Rs. 3,13,945/- was repaid into the loan account.

3.       While so during 2012 one cow having tag no. 801500/70318  died  during  delivery.  It was insured  for an amount of Rs. 30,000/-.   The matter was informed to the opposite parties and  application was  filed before the 1^st opposite party.    Postmortem examination of the carcass  was also done. Though  complainant visited the office of opposite parties several times  the insurance amount was not credited into her account. 

4.       During 2015 there was a notification  directing to right off the loans and so complainant   got information that the  balance amount was written off. Though complainant approached opposite parties 1 and 2 to right off the loan they were not prepared for the same on a contention that the loan was secured  through property. Complainant did not receive benefits which she is entitled and thereby there  was deficiency of  service from the part of opposite parties.  On 26/12/2022 complainant received notice from the Legal Service Authority filed by  the 2^nd opposite party as no. 8586/22. On 27/10/2022 when complainant appeared before the legal service authority  2^nd opposite party demanded huge amount to close the loan. Hence the complaint is filed for giving a direction to the  2^nd opposite party to close the loan and  return the title deed of her mother in law.  She is also claiming the insurance amount along with interest from the 1^st opposite party and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation.

5.       1^st opposite party filed a version mainly contenting as follows:-

 The complaint is hopelessly barred by law of limitation.  As per the allegation  raised in the complaint   the cause of action  for the complaint had arisen in  the year 2012 and so   the complaint filed after 10 years is not maintainable.  The averment that 1^st opposite party had insured a loan of Rs. 4 lakhs  availed from the 2^nd opposite party is absolutely false. The particulars of policy is not  mentioned in the complaint. So far this opposite party has not received any claim with regard to the said transaction. 

6.       The averment that one of the cow of the complainant  was  insured with this opposite party for an amount of Rs. 30,000/- is denied.  This  opposite party never issued a policy as alleged in the complaint. There is no deficiency of service  from the part of this opposite party. Hence  this frivolous and vexatious complaint may be dismissed with compensatory cost.

7.       2^nd opposite party remained exparte.

8.       On the above pleadings following points were raised for consideration:-

1. Whether the  complaint is hit by limitation?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties as alleged?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get an order to return the title deed of her mother in law after closing  loan issued by the 2^nd opposite party?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to realize the insurance amount along with interest as prayed in the complaint.?
5. 5. Whether the complainant is entitled to realize   an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation as prayed for?
6. Reliefs and costs?

9.       Evidence  in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A3, A4 series, A5 and A6 from the side of the complainant.   1^st opposite party has not adduced  any evidence  either oral or documentary.

10.     Point No. 1 to 4:-

PW1 is the complainant.  She filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and marked Ext.A1 to A3, A4 series A5 and A6.

11.     In the version filed by the 1^st opposite party it is contended that  complaint is hit by limitation.  As per the allegation raised  in  the complaint  the cause of action for the complaint had arisen in the year 2012 and complaint filed for getting compensation after a lapse of  10 years  is hopelessly barred by law of limitation it is stated. Sec. 69 of the  Consumer Protection Act, 2019 reads as follows:- 

“  Limitation Period :

(1) The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission , shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date  on which the cause of action has arisen.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section  (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

PROVIDED that so such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be records its reasons for condoning such delay”

12.     Here in this case in the complaint it is stated that   complainant had availed a loan during 2010 from State Bank of Travancore(Now SBI) and purchased  7 cows and 3 buffalos.   She had insured the cows with the 1^st opposite party and  cow having tag. No. 801500/70318 died during 2012 and the complaint is filed claiming compensation from the 1^st opposite party. Complainant is also seeking a relief of  closing the loan  availed from  2^nd opposite party and returning the title deeds given at the time of availing  the loan. In the  complaint  Para. No. 8  the cause of action is shown as  information received from  Legal Service Authority Alappuzha on 26/10/2022. Complainant was examined as PW1 and  marked Ext.A1 to A3, A4 series. Ext.A5 and A6.  The document by which complainant received information  on 26/10/2022  from the District Legal Service Authority is not  produced.  Even as per the admitted case  2^nd  opposite party filed a complaint   before the  Legal Service Authority. But 1^st opposite party is not a party in the said complaint. Admittedly the cow died during 2012 and the loan was availed from the  1^st opposite party during 2010.  Ext. A5 is a notice dtd. 20/2/2018 issued from SBI (2^nd opposite party) U/s  13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.  Hence as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st opposite party  though in the complaint it is alleged that the  cause of action arose on  26/10/2022  no document is produced to prove the same.  On the other hand  cattle insurance policy produced and marked as Ext.A4 series  is for a period from  30/1/2012 to  29/1/2013 and from  30/1/2015 to29/1/2015.  The complaint is seen filed on 7/1/2022.  No petition is also seen filed, U/s 69 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to condone the delay.  As per the proviso  to Sec. 69,  there is a bar for the Commissions  to entertain the complaint without condoning the delay. Here in this case  since no petition is filed to  condone the delay and so that the cause of  action arose long back, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st opposite party  the  complaint is hit by limitation  and so it is not maintainable.

13.     Coming to the merits of the case the  case of PW1 , complainant is that she availed a loan from SBT (Now SBI) during 2010 for purchasing  7 cows and  3 buffalos.   As a security for the loan  the  title deed of mother in law was given to the bank. According to PW1 till 2015 she repaid  an amount of Rs. 2,13,945/- and got an amount of Rs. 1 lakh as subsidy from NABARD. Hence according to her she has paid an amount of Rs. 3,13,945/-.  However the bank has issued  Ext.A5 notice  u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 20/2/2018 claiming an amount of Rs. 3,60,539/- along with future interest.  According  to PW1 no amount is due to the bank and so  a direction is  to be given to the  2^nd opposite party bank to close the loan and return the title deed.  However no document is seen produced  to prove the alleged transaction and the repayment. The statement of account from the 2^nd  opposite party bank  is not seen produced to prove the contentions.  2^nd opposite party remained exparte.  Since no  documents are produced to prove the  alleged transaction with the 2^nd opposite party bank and the repayment of the loan, no order can be passed against 1^st opposite party especially when it is seen that  2^nd opposite party had initiated proceedings under the  SARFAESI Act by issuing Ext.A5 notice on 20/2/2018. 

14.     The case against 1^st opposite party is that complainant had insured one cow  with them and it died  during 2012. It is alleged that the cow which died had Tag No. 801500/70318. Ext.A3 is the Certificate  of  Insurance/ Gosuraksha Scheme.  Tag No. 801500/70318  is not finding a place in Ext.A3.  So it is pellucid that the cow  having Tag No.801500/70318 which died was not insured as per Ext.A3 certificate of insurance.  Ext.A4 series are the  policies issued by the 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st policy is on 30/1/2012 to 29/1/2013 and the 2^nd policy is from 30/1/2012 to 29/1/2015.  Since the complaint is filed on 7/11/2022 even   if there was a policy the claim is hit by limitation . Ext.A2 is a notice issued by the 1^st opposite party  on 23/4/2012 to the complainant  to  produce certain documents including ear tag No. 70318. It is not known whether  it was produced.   However the letter dtd. 23/4/2012 and the complaint is filed on 7/11/2022.   Though insurance amount is claimed the  certificate of post mortem examination of the carcass and the photographs which are mandatory for a claim is not seen produced. 

 15.    The complainant was examined on 7/3/2023 as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A6 were marked.  Thereafter the case was posted for further evidence as per the  request of the learned counsel appearing for the complainant to 13/3/2023.  On 13/3/2023 opposite party was represented and there was no representation for complainant.  Witnesses were also not produced.  Hence the case was posted for  opposite parties Evidence to 16/3/2023. On 16/3/2023 also complainant was absent and  there was no representation and   hence the case was posted for hearing to 20/3/2023. On 20/3/2023 also there was no representation for the complainant and hence the  case was taken for orders after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st opposite party to 27/3/2023.  So from the proceedings paper it is seen that after examined PW1 on 7/3/2023 complainant or her counsel  did not turn up.  It appears that they have abandoned  the case. Since opposite parties were unnecessarily dragged in to this Commission,  complainant is liable to pay cost.  From the discussions made  above it can be safely concluded that the  complaint is hit by limitation and even on merits also  complainant is not entitled to get a favourable order and so these points are found against the complainant.

16.     Point No. 5:-

In the result complaint is dismissed with cost of Rs. 3000/- to the 1^st opposite party.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 27^th     day of March, 2023.                                    

                                                                 Sd/-Sri.S.SanthoshKumar(President)

                          Sd/-Smt.P.R.Sholy (Member)

Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:- 

Ext.A1                 -   Loan pass book

Ext.A2                  -   Certificate

Ext.A3                  -   Certificate of Insurance

Ext.A4                -   Copy of Cattle Insurance Policy

Ext.A5                           -   Copy of SARFAESI Notice from SBI bank

Ext.A6                   -  Copy of Insurance scheme certificate 

Evidence of the opposite parties: NIL       

///True Copy ///

To        

            Complainant/Oppo.party/S.F.

                                                                                                                           By Order

                                                                                                                    Assistant Registrar

Typed by:- Sa/-

Comp.by: