DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 26th day of May 2015
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President
: Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing: 23/07/2014
(C.C.No.106/2014)
Vasanthakumari.K
W/o.Devadas,
Valiyaveettil,
(Chenthrathil Karimambil),
Mayilumpuram,
Ottapalam – 679 102 - Complainant
(Party rep.by Authorised Person)
Vs
The Manager
Union Bank,
Branch Ottapalam,
Ottapalam - 679102 - Opposite party
(By Adv.K.Krishnakumar)
O R D E R
By Smt.Shiny.P.R. President.
Brief facts of the complaint.
On 30-10-2009 complainant availed a Dairy Loan under “Gosuraksha” Scheme for two cows. One for Rs.30,000/- and other for Rs.20,000/-. Up to 22/8/2013 complainant regularly paid the loan amount. After that complainant could not repay the loan amount due to the sickles disease in cows. Subsequently both cows were died. Brown cow was pregnant at the time of its death. Complainant submitted that Opposite party did not remit the insurance premium to renew the policy to the insurance company. Then the policy lapsed. So the complainant did not get insurance claim from the insurance company for the brown cow. Opposite party regularly paid the insurance premium of the previous years’ by adjusting from the loan installment amount which was paid by the complainant. Complainant submitted that Opposite party failed to pay the insurance premium in time. Opposite party deprived the right of the complainant to get the claim for the brown cow from the insurance company. This act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Now opposite party initiated Revenue Recovery proceedings against the complainant for Rs.11,537/-. Hence Complainant prays for an order directing Opposite party
- To pay sum Rs.20,000/-along with cost of Rs.10,000/- and
- To quash the demand notice issued to the complainant
Complaint was admitted and issued notice to opposite party. Opposite party entered appearance and filed their version contenting the following: Opposite party admitted the loan and its repayment up to 22/8/2013. Complainant had two cows. One black cow with tag No.420001/726848 and the other brown cow with tag No. 420010/726451. Opposite party disputed the death of brown cow. Black cow had valid insurance policy at the time of its death and the complainant has obtained the insurance claim from the insurance company. But the Brown cow’s policy has lapsed due to the non payment of the premium. Opposite party submitted that they could not pay the insurance premium because of non payment of loan amount by the complainant and complainant’s failure to take steps to renew the policy. Opposite party further submitted that they had informed to the complainant and her husband through phone and notices about the steps to be taken for the renewal of policy. But the complainant did not come to the bank or take any steps to renew the policy. Opposite party submitted that Authorized person of bank and insurance Company and Veterinary Doctor have to visit the site and inspect the cow for renewing the policy. After receiving the report of the Doctor the insurance company renew the policy on receiving the premium. In the case of the death of cow, complainant should be submitted the tag of cow, Photographs and postmortem report of certified veterinary surgeon along with claim form to the insurance company. These formalities are not fulfilled by the complainant. Opposite party also submitted that in the postmortem report which was already submitted along with compliant the date of death of the cow is 26/10/2013. Subsequently she produced another postmortem report dated 6/10/2014. In that report the brown cow died on 4/1/2014. Opposite party further submitted that this is a false case and produced fabricated documents. There are some negligence from the part of complainant herself by not paying the loan amount and taking steps to renew the policy. Hence there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the part of opposite party. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Both parties filed their respective chief affidavits. Ext.A1 to A9 were marked from the side of complainant and Ext.B1 to B4 were marked from the side of opposite party. Complainant was cross examined as PW1 and Opposite party was cross examined as DW1.
Issues are to be considered
- Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite party ?
- If so, what is the relief ?
Issues 1 & 2
Both parties heard. We have perused the documents on record. It is the admitted fact that the complainant has taken loan for two cows and regular repayment of loan installment up to 22/8/2013. The opposite party disputed the death of brown cow. In the version Opposite party admitted that black cow was already died and has valid insurance and complainant has received insurance claim. In the above circumstances we are of the opinion that the remaining cow is brown cow. Ext.A5 Postmortem report dated 6/10/2014 shows that brown cow was died on 4/1/2014 and Ext.A7 newspaper report also prove this fact.
Complainant and Opposite party admitted that previous year’s premium was regularly paid by the opposite party and on 22/8/2013 onwards complainant defaulted the repayment of loan amount. As per the version of the opposite party one of the reason for the non payment of the premium is that complainant defaulted the payment of the loan installment. In Ext B1 series, policy certificate of United India insurance Co. Ltd. shows that the validity period of policy expired on 22/6/2013. Entries in Ext.A3 pass book reveals the fact that complainant had paid Rs.2,000/-towards the loan installment on 22/6/2013. Opposite party ought to have remit the premium from the amount. But opposite party did not remit the insurance premium to the insurance company. Ordinarily opposite party paid the insurance premium then debited the premium amount from the loan account. It is the admitted case of both parties that for preceding two years the cows were got insured by Opposite party and premium was debited from the account of complainant. Hence we are of the opinion that there are some omissions committed from the part of opposite party. The next reason for the non payment of the premium is that the complainant did not take steps to renew the policy in spite of the repeated requests of the opposite party. Opposite party submitted that they have informed the complainant and her husband to renew the policy through phone. In order to prove this fact opposite party was not adduced any evidence before the Forum. Ordinarily the insurance policy certificates are in the custody of the bank. Complainant did not know the renewal date of the policy. It is the bounden duty of the opposite party to inform the complainant about the renewal of the policy and to renew the policy on due date. In this case opposite party has the duty to inform the complainant about the renewal of the policy before 22/06/2013. Opposite party failed to do so. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party bank. By the act of opposite party complainant has sustained financial loss and mental agony. Hence Opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.
In the result we are of the view that the act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence Complaint is partly allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay Rs 20,000 (Rupees Twenty thousand only) as compensation for mental agony along with cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) to the complainant. Opposite party has the right to adjust the arrears of loan amount from the ordered amount. Order shall be complied within a period of one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 26th day of May 2015.
Sd/- Shiny.P.R.
President
Sd/-
Suma.K.P.
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Copy of Doctor Certificate dtd.15/11/2013
Ext.A2-Copy of Insurance policy of Cow
Ext.A3- Copy of bank passbook of the complainant
Ext.A4-Demand Notice issued by Ambalapara Village Office dtd.30/05/2014
Ext.A5-Postmortem report of cow
Ext.A6- Tag of insured cow
Ext.A7- Copy of Paper news cutting of Mathrubhumi daily dtd.07/01/2014
Ext.A8-Photos of died cow
Ext.A9- postmortem photos of died cow
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite party
Ext.B1 series- Copy of cattle insurance scheme
Ext.B2series- True copy of Inspection report along with Doctor certificate
Ext.B3-Hypothecation(Goods)Agreement between complainant and OP.
Ext.B4 series-Letters issued to complainant by OP
Witness marked on the side of complainant
PW1-Vasanthakumari
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
DW1-Reghunandhanan.V
Cost
Rs.1,000/- allowed as cost of proceedings.
