This case has arisen out of an application U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The case of the complainant is that she is a rural women working in agriculture and farming to support her family, so she bought a cow in the year 2018 & insured with O.P.No-1 vide Policy No:59121159, of Rs.50,000/- valid till 09.04.2021, through Corporate Agent/O.P.No-3 who deducted Rs.4,720/- as policy premium on 10.04.2018 from her savings A/c No:-109002685975.

That on 31.08.2018 suddenly said cow became ill and died and on the same day postmortem was done, and it came out that due to Ruminal Tympany said cow had died.

That on 24.09.2018 she filed claim petition with necessary documents to O.P.No-3 for insurance claim who send it to O.P.No-1 on 04.10.2018 but the O.Ps did not pay the insurance claim to her till date thus she filed this case praying for principle claim of Rs.50,000/- with interest, compensation of Rs.19,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

O.P.No-1 & 2 contested the case by filing written version stating that O.P/Insurance Company has issued Pashu Dhan Bima Policy No:-59121159 through insured Raiganj Central Co-operative Bank Ltd, covering Bovine of Sachi Rani Das having Tag No:-236603, the policy was valid from 10.04.2018 to 09.04.2021. O.P/Insurance Company after receipt of claim petition on 1^st September 2018 followed-up with insured RCCB Ltd for required documents and sent a request letter on 20.12.2018. O.P/Insurance Company intimated insured RCCB Ltd vide Letter dated 23.01.2019 that due to non-compliance of the required documents they are not in a position to proceed further and hence closing the claim. O.P/Insurance Company has no negligence or deficiency of service so they pray for dismissal of the case.

O.P.No-3/RCC Bank Ltd contested the case by filing written version stating that the complainant came before O.P.No-3 through Kulik Co-operative Milk Union Ltd and O.P.No-3 under Govt. scheme Diary Entrepreneurship Development Scheme (DEDS) issued/sanctioned a loan of Rs.1,20,000/- for two unit of cattle where 10% of total project cost Rs.12,000/- was margin and rest 90% i.e Rs.1,08,000/-, for each cow margin money was Rs.6,000/- and rest 90% i.e Rs.54,000/- for each cow. Out of 02 cows one succumbed to illness on 31.08.2018 and on the same date post mortem was done and from the report the cause of death found Ruminal Tympany. O.P.No-3 hired O.P.No-1 & 2 as insurer of the cattle, just played a role of medium between the complainant and O.P/Insurance Company. The complainant submitted application along with original testimonials before O.P.No-3 on 24.09.2018 and O.P.No-3 sent the same to O.P.No-1 on 04.10.2018 but after receiving the same O.P/Insurance Company stayed as motionless and thereafter issued Claim Sheet to O.P.No-3 on 20.12.2018 for supplying further documents and also issued a reminder letter to O.P.No-3 for supplying more documents on 23.01.2019  but the claim is not cleared. That after receiving the complaint O.P.No-3 immediately sent the same to O.P.No-1 including Tag No and also testimonials. O.P.No-3 duly discharged their duty against whom the complainant has not grievance and O.P.No-3 prays for exoneration from the case.

Points for consideration are:-

1. Whether there was any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps which gives rise cause of action to file the complaint and the complainant is entitled to get the claim?

D e c i s i o n w i t h r e a s o n s

Admittedly, the complainant belongs to SC Community and a women of Agrarian family and to bring prosperity  in her family she came before O.P.No-3/Bank through Kulik Co-operative Milk Union to purchase cow on loan under the Diary Entrepreneurship Development Scheme (DEDS).

The case of O.P.No-3/Bank is that it issued/sanctioned loan of Rs.1,20,000/- for two cattle/cow, subsidy was Rs.40,000/-, where 10% of total project cost i.e Rs.12,000/- was margin and rest 90% i.e Rs.1,08,000/-& for each cow margin money was Rs.6,000/- and rest 90% of Rs.54,000/-.

The subject matter of this case is one female cow (Spacie & Breed-Bovine CBJ, Color-Red & White, aged about 05 Yrs) which was succumbed to illness on 31.08.2018 and on the same date postmortem was done and from the postmortem report the cause of death found Ruminal Tympany.

It is admitted that O.P.No-3 as Corporate Agent and banker of the complainant deducted Rs.4,720/- from her savings A/c No:-109002685975 as policy premium and insured said cow having Tag No:-236603 with O.P/Insurance Company vide Pashu Dhan Bima Policy No:-59121159 of Rs.50,000/-valid from 10.04.2018 to 09.04.2021.

It is also admitted that the complainant intimated the Bank on 24.09.2018 along with Death Certificate/Panchnama signed by Govt. Veterinary Doctor dated 24.09.2018 & Veterinary certificate/Post Mortem Report signed by Govt. Veterinary Doctor dated 24.09.2018.

Ld. Advocate for O.P.No-3/Bank highlighted Note 1 & 2 as depicted at the bottom of claim form viz

Note 1. In the event of any claim intimation to the Bank, Bank should hand over claim form after filling the name of the policy holder, name of Bank and date of intimation. The same should be entered in the Bank’s Insurance Register Book.

2. Kindly ensure that all the information and documents should come together for timely settlement of claim.

Those Note 1 & 2 at the bottom of Claim Form make the Bank responsible for filling of Claim Form properly and to transmit onward to the Insurance Company for claim settlement. Bank’s Insurance Register Book, in custody of Bank, is not produced but still we have to see the action taken by the Bank.

  It appears from the Claim Form that on receipt of claim intimation/duly filled in Claim Form, the  Branch Manager, Raiganj Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Itahar Branch signed thereon dated 04.10.2018, who issued BANK CERTFIFICATE which runs as:-

We certify that, the animal described above bearing Tag No:-236638 belonging to Smt. Sachi Rani Das of Vill-Palaibari is insured under Master Policy No:59121159. The insured is a beneficiary under DEDS Scheme/the insured is not a beneficiary under any Govt. Scheme the dead animal/carcass has been inspected by our Officer Mr…………. on dt 31.08.2018.

Along with we are sending all the following documents required for claim settlement-

1. Completely filled Claim Form
2. Health Certificate given at the time of purchase of the animal
3. Death Certificate/Post Mortem Report given by   Veterinary doctor(for non-scheme animals)
4.   Valuation Certificate of the animal given by Veterinary doctor (For non-scheme animals) 
5. Completely filled Pachnama (For scheme animals)
6. Total no. of Tags 1 and their number as

Follows 236638

7. Photograph of dead animal with Tag
8. Any other document ………….

    Date:-(Blank).

The crux of the case is whether O.P.No-3/Bank Authority sent said TAG (No.236638) to O.P/Insurance Company or not.

According to O.P/Insurance Company after receipt of claim No:-3159/18-19-272 it followed-up with insured RCCB Ltd for required documents and sent a request letter on 20.12.2018 to RCC Bank Ltd. Said letter runs as:-

This has reference to your claim informing us the cattle died due to disease.

In absence of requisite documents we are not in a position to deal with the claim at our end.

We request you to submit the documents within one week to proceed the claim.

O.P/Insurance Company stated further than then it intimated insured RCCB Ltd vide letter dated 23.01.2019. Said letter runs as:-

This is in continuation to our mail dated 20.12.2018 wherein we have requested you to arrange for the required documents such as Claim Form, P.M.Report, Original Tag etc. But we regret to inform that we have not received the aforesaid documents till date from your good office.

We wish to inform you that we are unable to proceed with the present claim in absence of the aforesaid documents.

We further wish to inform you that a claim cannot be kept open for an indefinite period. Hence we shall be left with no option but to close the claim in our records for non-compliance of the claim documents.

Above mentioned Bank’s certificate manifests that O.P.No-3/Bank has duly received the TAG(No:-236638) from the complainant. O.P/Insurance Company denied receipt of said TAG from O.P.No-3/Bank.

So the burden lies upon the O.P.No-3/Bank to prove that it sends said TAG and/or O.P/Insurance Company duly received that TAG. Samiran Saha, Assistant General Manager of RCCB Bank Ltd, Head Office at Raiganj examined himself as O.P.W.1 who in cross-examination, once deposed that we have received TAG no. from the complainant, not the TAG, deposed thereafter that after receiving the testimonials from the complainant we have handed over the same to the Complainant (on good faith) who deposited the same with O.P.No-2, then deposed we were sending the same to O.P.No-2 through the Peon/Medium (complainant). The statements are self-contradictory, which goes against the Bank. He deposed that- Not a fact we misplaced the said TAG so we kill time for depositing the same to Insurance Company. 

From above discussion the irresistible conclusion would be that O.P.No-3 received that TAG from the complainant but omitted/failed to send the same to O.P/Insurance Company, as a result the claim was closed. We are of the considered view that there was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of O.P/Insurance Company but due to omission/failure to send the TAG to O.P/Insurance Company, claim was closed, so O.P.No-3/Bank was/is solely responsible and there was negligence and deficiency in service on the part of O.P.No-3/Bank. Consequently, we opined that the complainant is entitled to get sum assured Rs.50,000/- from O.P.No-3/Bank but we are not inclined to award interest there on. We find it modest to award compensation of Rs.3,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-.

Ld. Advocate for O.P/Bank referred a citation RE: The Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd vs- Sh. Prem Ram in First Appeal No:-258/2011 of SCDRC, Uttarakhand where the claim of the complainant was repudiated by Insurance Company on the basis of “NO TAG NO CLAIM”. The judgment referred supports the claim of the Insurance Company herein & delay in giving intimation to the Insurance Company in that case is not relevant in this case.

Ld. Advocate highlighted condition No:10 of Livestock (Cattle) Insurance-Policy, which relates to action to be taken on the death of insured animal which is not relevant in this case. Condition:25 for redressal of Public Grievance Rules, 1998 (Ombudsman rules) is also not relevant herein. S.B.I Gen. Insurance’s Cattle Insurance Policy produced by him is also of no help.

Ld. Advocate for O.P.No-3/Bank referred a citation RE: Contai Co-operative Bank Ltd Vs- Union of India & Ors in W.P.No:7186(W) of 2018 of Calcutta High Court (Appellate Side) & highlighted provision of Section 102 (4) & Section 145 (2) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006. The two provisions are set out herein below:

102.(1)………..

       (2)………..

       (3)………..

       (4) Any Civil Court or any Consumer’s Dispute Redressal Forum shall not have any jurisdiction to try any dispute as mentioned in Sub-Section (1).

145.(1)…………

        (2) Save as provided in this Act, no Civil Court or Revenue Court or Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum shall have jurisdiction in regard to anything done or any action taken or any order passed under this Act and, in particular, in regard to-

And he argued that party aggrieved may approach the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies in accordance with 2006 Act.

In the present case no provision of West Bengal Co-Operative Societies Act, 2006 is under challenge, so we opined that the said judgment is not applicable herein.

In the result the case succeeds.

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

that the C.C-17/2020 be and the same is allowed on contest against O.P.No-3/RCC Bank Ltd, but dismissed on contest against O.P.No-1&2/Insurance Company.

We do direct O.P.No-3/RCCB Bank Limited to pay Rs.50,000/- + 3,000/- + 2,000/- on above mentioned heads within 01 month from the date of order, failing which it shall carry interest @6% p.a till realization in full & the complainant will be at liberty to recover the same in due process of Law.

Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.