Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. This is a Complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Party with her grievance that she had purchased two cows by obtaining loan from the Opposite party in a total some of Rs.30,000/- on 22.03.2004. It is further stated that the Opposite party Bank itself had taken the responsibility of insuring the cows and paying premiums as and when the premiums fall due. In the meantime, one of the cows purchased by her died due to ill-health, then she applied to the Opposite party for insured amount which though assured to pay, but by its letter dated 11.12.2006 informed her that insurance taken for deceased cow has expired on 24.03.2005 as the policy had not been renewed. Despite she approaching the Opposite party and apprising it of its responsibility to renew the policy it did not heed to her request and therefore got issued a legal notice dated 14.05.2007 and thereby has prayed for a direction to the op to pay her Rs.15,000/- being the cost of the cow and damages of Rs.15,000/-.<br /> 2. The Opposite party has filed its version admitting advancement of loan to the complainant for purchase of two cows, but denied that it had taken the responsibility to insure the cows. It is further admitted that it was informed by the complainant regarding the death of the cow but contended that the policy was not renewed from 24.03.2005. Therefore, the complainant could not get the insured amount and further contending that it was the responsibility of the complainant to get the insurance done and to keep on renewing it and there was no obligation on it to do that part of job and therefore, further stating that the legal notice has been suitably replied has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the Manager of the Opposite party have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what has been stated by them in their respective complaint and version. The complainant has also produced copy of the insurance policy, copy of the correspondences including legal notice, reply and copies of relevant entries of her bank pass book and payment receipts to show that the Opposite party itself had taken the polices and paid the premiums on her behalf. Heard the counsel for both the parties perused the records and also the written arguments filed by the counsel for the Opposite party. The counsel for the Opposite party has also placed reliance on the decisions reported in AIR 1935 Privy Council page – 79, ILR 1969 Karnataka Page – 672, AIR 1976 AP page – 205, AIR 1963 Calcutta page 473 and II 1995 (CPJ) page – 143 (NC).<br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the Opposite party Bank on her behalf had taken the responsibility of insuring the cows and renewing the policy?<br /> 2. Whether she further proves that the Opposite party with out getting the insurance policy renewed has caused deficiency?<br /> 3. Whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief sought for?<br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the Affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : In the affirmative.<br /> Point no.3 : In the affirmative.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Points no. 1 to 3:- The fact that the Complainant had borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the Opposite party and purchased two cows is not at all in dispute. As the Opposite party has also admitted the same in its version and also in the affidavit. Further, the fact that one of the cows of the complainant died on 29.11.2006 is also not in dispute, but dispute started when the complainant made a claim for insurance amount from the Opposite party and when the Opposite party replied to the complainant that the insurance policy taken on the deceased cow has expired and has not been got renewed from 24.03.2005 onwards and therefore, the policy was not effective as on 20.11.2006 on which date the cow died.<br /> 7. It is contended by the complainant in her complaint and also in her affidavit evidence that the Bank itself had taken responsibility of insuring the cow and also paying the premiums on her behalf, but the Bank has not discharged its duty of getting the insurance renewed and therefore attributed deficiency to the Opposite party and therefore has prayed for the relief. The counsel for the Opposite party invited our attention to the conditions of policy namely Condition-G and submitted that to keep the hypothecated property insured for the full market value against the risk of fire etc., as required by the Bank the owner of the property himself or herself should take the policy delivered it to the bank and to pay the premium regularly and further argued that in case of any default on the part of the insured in payment of the premium the bank is at liberty without any obligation to pay the premiums on behalf of the insured and to collect the premium amount from the insured. Therefore, argued that in the case on hand it was not obligatory on the bank either to take insurance or to keep it renewed and therefore submitted for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> 8. The complainant in order to support her claim that the bank itself when advanced the loan for purchase of cows took the responsibility of insuring the cows paid the premium and was debiting to her bank account has relied upon the receipts issued by the concerned insurance company in the name of the Opposite party Bank and stated that it was the Opposite party Bank who contacted the insurance company for issuing a policy and accordingly, the insurance company issued policy on her behalf to the Opposite party. It is found from these receipts issued by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., wherein it had sent the proposal to the Opposite party Karnataka Bank, indicating the premium amount paid and issued a policy covering the life of the cow. Further, the complainant has also produced and relied upon the receipt sent by the insurance company in the name of the Karnataka Bank for having received the premium amount covering the policy till 25.03.2004. Thereafter, it is found that the Opposite party Bank debited that amount to the account of this complainant maintained with it. Therefore, it is evident that the Opposite party itself got the cow insured paid the premium directly to the insurance company on behalf of the complainant and withdrawn the premium amount from the account of the complainant. It is also relevant at this stage to mention that the Opposite party Bank itself is getting the insurance policy renewed in respect of the other cow by paying the premium amount on behalf of the complainant and debiting it to her account. Therefore, it goes without saying that the Opposite party who advanced loan to the complainant for purchase of cows with a view to secure that amount got the cows insured on behalf of the complainant at her cost and kept the policy with it. Thereafter, it is found that the Opposite party neither got the policy renewed nor informed the complainant of its intention of leaving the renewal of the policy to the option of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant being a restrict lady believed that the Opposite party itself would be getting the policy renewed from time to time and debiting to her account the premium amount. No doubt, as argued by the counsel for the Opposite party it is not obligatory for the Opposite party Bank to have insurance policy but once it has chosen to insure the property hypothecated for securing its debt it should have continued to renew the policy if not should have informed the complainant well in advance to get the policy renewed so that the complainant could get the benefit of the insurance. The Opposite party has not disputed the fact that itself got initiated to take the policy, having paid the premium and debiting that amount to the account of the complainant. It is also not the case of the Opposite party that at any stage they had informed the Complainant of their unwillingness in getting the policy renewed or in having informed the Complainant to get the policy renewed. As that was not done the Complainant could not do anything in the matter. Thus inevitably the Opposite party should have continued the policy. It is also not the case of the Opposite party that it could not get the insurance policy renewed for want of adequate funds in the account of the Complainant. Under these circumstances, we hold that the Opposite party failed to get the insurance policy renewed to cover the life risk of the cow and thereby caused deficiency in its service, as such it is liable to account to the Complainant. The decision relied upon by the counsel for the Opposite party have no direct bearing on the facts of this case, as such we do not wish to elaborately discuss on them.<br /> 9. The Complainant in her complaint has claimed relief of Rs.15,000/- being the cost of the cow and also damages of Rs.15,000/-. Admittedly, the Complainant after purchase of the cow has derived some money as it was milking cow for more than one year before its death and admittedly, she had a calf of that cow. Though, the benefit derived by the Complainant is not quantified by either of the parties. However, the facts that she derived some benefit from that cow till its death cannot be denied. Therefore, the Complainant is not entitled for entire insurance amount of Rs.15,000/-. As such, we find it just to order for payment of Rs.13,000/- with interest, as such the complainant is not entitled for any other damages. With the result, we answer the above points accordingly and pass the following order: -<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is allowed in part.<br /> 2. The 1st Opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.13,000/- to the Complainant with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of his claim with the Opposite party till the date of payment and it shall pay within two months from the date of receipt of this order.<br /> 3. The Opposite party shall recover this amount from its manager or official concerned who was in charge of this file was required to get that insurance renewed or who ought to have brought to the notice of the manager for renewal of the policy after payment to the Complainant as ordered above.<br /> 4. The Opposite party is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the Complainant being the cost of this Complaint. <br /> 5. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br />