BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 221/2007 against C.C. 92/2006, Dist. Forum, Tirupathi.
Between:
P. Ravi, S/o. Venkata Swamy
Farmer, Santhi Nagar
Diguvavuru
Chinnagottigalu (M)
Chittoor Dist. *** Appellant/
Complainant
And
1) ING Vysya Bank Ltd.
Bhakarapet
Rep. by its Manager
2) National Insurance Company Ltd.
Rep. by its Branch Manager
2nd Floor, PVN Complex
Seshapiren Street,
Chittoor-517 001. *** Respondent/
Ops.
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. G. Ramaiah Pillai.
Counsel for the Respondents: M/s. B. S. Prasad (R1)
M/s. S. Agasthya Sharma (R2)
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER.
WEDNESDAY, THIS THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND TEN
ORALAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President.)
***
1) Appellant is unsuccessful complainant.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he borrowed an amount of Rs. 15,000/- from R1 bank for purchase of a miltch cow covered under group insurance policy with R2 covering the risk of 23 cows for the period commencing from 2.5.2005 to 1.5.2008 each for Rs. 15,000/-. One of the cows was given tag No. 54943 for identification duly verified by the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon. Later re-tagging was done bearing No. 11076 duly informed to the bank. While so on 3.5.2006 the cow died and the said fact was intimated to Oriental Insurance Company by letter Dt. 4.5.2006 by mistake by the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon instead of intimating to R2. He conducted post-mortem examination on 4.5.2006. The complainant issued a telegram to the insurance company on 5.5.2006. R1 in fact informed the said fact to R2 on 5.5.2006 enclosing the letter of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon and requested to settle the claim. Despite his repeated requests the claim was not settled. He issued legal notice. However, R2 denied its liability stating that the re-tagging was done without prior intimation and as such he was not entitled to any compensation. Therefore, he filed the complaint for recovery of Rs. 15,000/- together with compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and costs.
3) R1 bank resisted the case. It was stated that when the complainant asked for settlement it intimated by its letter that the cow bearing tag No. 11076 was not insured with it. It had issued group insurance policy for 23 cows. A cow bearing tag No. 54943 was covered by insurance. At any rate it has immediately submitted to R2 on receipt of information that on 3.5.2006 insured cow died enclosing the post-mortem examination report. The Veterinary Assistant Surgeon informed to Oriental Insurance Company instead of R2 by mistake. However, the complainant issued a telegram followed by letter, and the insurance company ought to have settled the claim. At any rate, there is no deficiency in service on its part. Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) R2 equally resisted the case. While admitting that the cow with old tag No. 54943 was insured along with other 22 cows, it alleged that it was not aware the fact of death of cow was informed to a wrong insurance company. The cow bearing tag No. 11076 was not insured with it. It has received a letter on 5.5.2006 from the bank with death intimation and re-tagging letter stating that re-tagging was done on 9.3.2006. As per the policy conditions the death intimation had to be reached within 12 hours by way of telegram followed by letter in order to inspect the carcass. The death intimation was received on 8.5.2006 after a lapse of six days depriving them to inspect the carcass. There was inordinate delay in intimation of death by the bank authorities. For the mistake committed by the bank they should not be held liable to pay the amount covered under the policy. It did not receive any telegram said to have been issued by the complainant. He did not inform the alleged re-tagging of the cow. A belated reply was given by the bank about the re-tagging. In fact, as per the terms of the policy, re-tagging should be done with prior intimation to it and as such the claim was invalid. There was violation of clause 7 and 13 of the terms and conditions of the policy. There was no deficiency of service on its part. Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A13 marked, while the opposite parties filed Exs. B1 to B7.
6) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record dismissed the complaint holding that there was violation of terms and conditions of the policy by not intimating re-tagging or death of the cow as stipulated under the terms.
7) Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. Condition No. 7 and 13 were not mandatory but they pertain to the procedure to be followed. He had sent the telegram on 5.5.2006 to the insurance company informing the death of the cow on 3.5.2006. The death of the cow was informed by the bank to the insurance company on 5.5.2006 under Ex. A4 enclosing the letter of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, and post-mortem certificate. It ought to have accepted that on 4.5.2006 the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon informed to the Oriental Insurance Company under Ex. A2 by mistake. When the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, a government official gave such certificate, there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Therefore he prayed that the claim be allowed.
8) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
9) It is an undisputed fact that the cow bearing tag No. 54943 belonging to the complainant was insured with R2 for Rs. 15,000/- covering the period from 2.5.2005 to 1.5.2008. The cow died on 3.5.2006 and the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon who conducted the post-mortem examination informed the death to the Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. instead of R2 National Insurance Company Ltd. In the death intimation he informed that the cow bearing tag No. 11076 died on 3.5.2006 at 4.00 p.m and post-mortem was conducted on the next day i.e., on 4.5.2006 at 9.30 a.m. The fact remains that R2 did not receive the said intimation. When the said fact was informed to R1 bank, it in turn informed R2 by letter Dt. 5.5.2006 that the cow belonging to the complainant bearing tag No. 11076 died on 3.5.2006 vide Ex. A4. The fact that the tag was lost and re-tagging bearing No. 11076 was made on 9.3.2006 was for the first time informed to the insurance company evidenced under Ex. A5 which was received on 8.5.2006. The fact remains that prior to re-tagging the said fact was not informed to R2 or immediately after re-tagging within a reasonable time. Only after its death the said fact was informed. The insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that there was violation of condition Nos. 7 & 13 of the terms and conditions of the policy. For benefit we re-produce the said conditions which run as follows:
Condition No. 7 : “On the death of the animal hereby insured the insured shall within 12 hours give notice thereof by telegram to the company at the office which has issued the policy and shall give the company all opportunity of inspection the carcass by not removing cutting or parting with it until at least the expiration of 24 hours after such notice shall have been received by the company. The insured shall also within 14 days furnish to the company such information accompanied by such veterinary certificate and satisfactory proof as to the death identity and value of the animal as the company may required.”
Condition No. 13 : “No claim in respect of death of animals covered under this policy shall be entertained unless the tag in respect of animals surrendered to the company in the event of loss of tags re-tagging shall be done immediately after the loss.”
10) The fact that re-tagging was done was informed for the first time to the insurance company according to the complainant was through a letter marked as Ex. A4. However the insurance company received the same on 8.5.2006. The complainant might have issued a telegram evidenced under Ex. A3 receipt. However, it does not disclose that it was sent to insurance company. Admittedly even the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon who said to have conducted the post-mortem did not inform to R2 insurance company but mistakenly sent intimation to some other insurance company by name Oriental Insurance Company. Admittedly the death of the cow was on 3.5.2006. The said fact was not informed till 5.5.2006 though re-tagging was done on 9.3.2006. It was informed on 8.5.2006. We may state herein that as per the terms and conditions of the policy death intimation should reach with 12 hours so that the insurance company could inspect the carcass. Equally prior intimation should be given for re-tagging. Both these conditions were not fulfilled by the complainant.
11) Since the complainant was at fault for not informing the insurance company about the re-tagging or post-mortem of carcass he was not entitled to any compensation. He has to blame himself for not informing the said fact and for not taking steps for getting the cow covered under the policy. Undoubtedly the consumer fora have to protect the interests of consumers but those consumers have to act in consonance with the conditions of the policy. Unjust repudiation would always be hauled up; however, if the complainant himself does not adhere to the terms and conditions of the policy. We may not be able to come to his rescue by awarding compensation. We do not see any merits in the appeal.
12) In the result the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 07. 07. 2010.
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”