KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMIISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 821/2004
JUDGMENT DATED : 31.07.2010
PRESENT:-
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
APPELLANT
1 The Manager,
Syndicate Bank,
Melamuri Branch,
Palakkad,
Rep. by the Branch Manager
( Rep. by Adv. Sri. R.S. Kalkura)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS
1. Khadeeja Aboobackar,
W/o Aboobackar,
Podippara, Kallekkad,
Palakkad.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. C.D. Dileep)
2. The Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
East Fort Complex, Kunnathurmedu,
Palakkad.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. Rajan P. Kaliyath)
JUDGMENT
SRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Palakkad in O.P. No. 129/2003 dated 31.8.2004. The appellants are the opposite parties. They prefers this appeal under the order passed by the Forum below directed the first opposite party to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards the value of the cow along with Rs. 1,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and also to pay an amount of Rs. 200/- as cost.
2. In short, the complainant availed a loan of Rs. 10,000/- from the first opposite party bank to purchase a cow and they issued a ear tag number 0805 on 12.6.2002 and arranged an insurance coverage with second opposite party ie insurance company. An amount of Rs. 1,339/- was also collected from the complainant and paid towards the premium of the insurance of the cow. Subsequently the lost tag held on intimation to the first opposite party ear tag. A tag (0195) was issued by the first opposite party which affixed on the cow on 17.3.2003. But unfortunately the cow died on 29.3.2003. The policy was issued by the second opposite party to cover the risk of the cow till 18.6.2005. But the second opposite party denied the claim of the complainant alleged that re tagging was not intimated to them in time. The complainant alleges that the first opposite party has failed to intimate the second opposite party regarding the loss and retagging and so the second opposite party refused the claim. Hence the complaint is filed for compensation of Rs. 20,000/- from the opposite parties for the negligence and deficiency in service.
3. The first opposite party filed their version and contented that they have not arranged the insurance coverage and there are no awareness of retagging. It was also contented that the death of the cow is known to them only on 6.5.2003. As such they are not liable to pay any compensation. The second opposite party contented that their contract for insurance is only with first opposite party and complaint has no locus-standee to make allegations against them. Retagging and subsequent death of the cow was not intimated to them. Hence there is no negligence on their part and as such repudiation was in accordance with law.
4. The complainant filed an affidavit. The doctor who has fixed the ear tagging was examined as Pw2 and documents Ext. A1 to A7 were marked. Same time Ext. B1 to B5 were marked on the side of the first opposite party. The Ext. A1 is a certificate issued by the doctor for fixing the ear tag on the cow on 17.3.2003 and the pw2 who is the most competent witness who deposed that he fixed the new ear tag after proper identification of the cow after referred to the old records. The doctor also stated that tags are usually issued from the bank. After retagging, it was intimated to the bank. The agriculturists will not get ear tags. It was fixed by the doctor. It was admitted by the pw2 and there is no dispute about the identity of the cow and that the cow was having valid insurance coverage as per retagging number 0195. A poor farmer how he has do every thing within the stipulated time as per the law. The oral testimony of pw1 and pw2 is sufficient to proved that the retagging was fixed by the doctor as per the consent and directions of the bank. The Ext. A1 is the certificate issued by the doctor, corroborating all these evidences. Whether intimated this matter in between the bank and the insurance company is not a matter of fact need not to concern the disbursement of complainant’s claim. The second opposite party alleged that the fixing of retag on the cow was not intimated by the first opposite party to the second opposite party, insurance company. There is no doubt that it is a carelessness and negligence from the part of the first opposite party. The counsel appeared for the appellant/first opposite party vehemently argued on the grounds of appeal memorandum that the order passed by the Forum below is not accordance with the provisions of law and evidence, it is liable to be set aside.
5. There is no representation for the first respondent/complainant, but there is a representation for the second respondent. We know the difficulty of the complainant, eventhough she was the owner of the cow to appear before this Commission at Trivandrum or at Ernakulam. This case is nothing but picture of a sympathetic condition of an agriculturalist, especially engaged in keeping cows for her and her family’s livelihood. There is no reasons that other persons say goodbye to this traditional keeping of cow and goats in their house. How well will rectify the shortage of milk in our state of Kerala.
6. This Commission is having a bitter experience from the part of either the Nationalized and Sheduled banks or from the part of the insurance companies to taken a negative view and attitude towards cow and goat owners. She paid premium for the insurance coverage after the missing of the tag provided by the company and it was intimated to them and re fixed another tag by a qualified vet nary doctor. But the company had taken a very unfair view towards a poor housewife regarding this matter. She need not have the hyper technicality of the banks and insurance companies. One side our government is spending crores of rupees for the developments of this type of traditional farming through conducting seminars and exhibitions in the five star hotels. But in other side the poor ordinary farmers are not even getting any relief or any justice from any corner of the government authorities. It is not only a single case this Commission is belong each and everyday there are so many similar cases are coming. . These are the reason for the heavy shortage of milk production in Kerala. But we are appreciating the vet nary doctor even though she is a lady she done maximum support and help to the owner of the cow. She I is having duty binding mind. We are appreciating her for taken such attitude and such officers are highly necessary for uplifting the poor cattle farmers like the complainant. We are not seeing any apparent error or illegality or regularity in the order passed by the Forum below. Instead of the payment of a small amount to the complainant another huge amount was spent by the company for conducting this appeal before this Commission. The company spent this money from the fund of the Public Ltd. company it is nothing but the fund of the people.
In the result, this appeal is dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the forum below. The first respondent/complainant is absent. It is a fit case to order to pay cost of the proceedings of appeal to the respondent/complainant. But we are not doing so. Both parties are directed to suffer their own costs. If the appellant failed to pay this amount to the complainant within 15 days after the receipt of the copy of this order the appellant shall pay 15% interest from that day onwards. The points of the appeal answered accordingly.
M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
JUSTICE.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
