By Sri. K Gheevarghese, President:<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> <br /> The brief of the complaint is as given below.<br /> <br /> The Complaint availed loan under SGSY Scheme for the purchase of a cow financed by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party sanctioned loan for cow farming, Rs.5000/- was given as the 1st instalment and the 2nd installment Rs.10,000/- was also paid. The terms of the loan was such that the first installment of the loan is to be used for constructing cattle shed and the 2nd installments is to be used to purchase the cow adding the contribution of the Complainant. The cost of the cow purchased by the Complainant was Rs. 20,000/- and the cow was also insured by the National Insurance company through the Opposite Party. The Complainant re paid regularly the amount in installments towards the loan. An another loan was sanctioned by the Opposite Party to the Complainant as an acknowledgment of the Complainants prompt payments of installments towards the loan. Rs.10,000/- was issued to the Complainant for the purchase of the second cow and the second cow was also insured by the United India Insurance Company through the Opposite Party's Bank. The Complainant depended mainly on the income from the milking cow for his livelihood. Later the cow was affected of some disease and the milking was stopped and more over the cow led to in fertility. The cow was later treated by a Veterinary Doctor and the Doctor also informed that the calving is impossible with respect to the cow. The Complainant requested the insurance Company to get the amount of insurance where as the Company informed the Complainant that the complaint is a defaulter and he is not entitled to get the insured sum. The policy premium was not remitted by the Opposite Party's Bank because of their negligence. The Opposite Party is responsible to renew the Insurance Premium and the latches on their part caused the Complainant loss Rs.20,000/- the insurance amount . More over the Complainant spent<br /> Rs.10,000/- for treatment of cow and that too was lost. A lawyer notice was sent to the Opposite Party. On accepting notice the Opposite Party intimated the Complainant to settle the dispute in between them and later in several occasions the Complainant was also threatened by the Opposite Party. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to give the Complainant Rs.20,000/- the insured sum, for pain and sufferings Rs.10,000/- and in total including the other expenses Rs.42,500/- is to be given by the Opposite Party to the complainant. <br /> <br /> 2. The Opposite Party filed version. The contention of the Opposite Party are as follows. The complaint is filed in the footing of an experimental base. Before filing this complaint the Complainant filed petitions with same relief through banking Ombudsman in the month of January and May 2007 both this complaint was rejected. An another petition was filed by the Complainant on 25.4.2007 before Taluk Legal Service Authority and following that an another petition was alsolodged before the District Collector, Wayanad. The allegations of the Complaint was not bonafied and all the petitions filed earlier was dismissed on finding that there was no merit. <br /> <br /> 3. For the Cattle Insurance ear tag identification is compulsory and that too is regarded in policy proposal form. All the further proceedings with respect to the insurance require the tag number. The Complainant was not in possession of the Cow which was tagged. In the absence of the cow on verification the insurance was not renewed. In the complaint filed before the Banking Ombudsman dated 25.9.2007 the reason shown by the Complainant on the absence of the cow is “amt\Psc H¶p ]co£n¡p¶Xn\v th­Wn ]iphns\ ho«n \n¶pw amän ” this averments itself is a cogent evidence to show that the Complainant is ill motivated. The opposite party is in the opinion that the cow having the ear tag was sold and as a result some flimsy reasons stated as such that the cow is shifted to some where else. There is no loss caused to the Complainant by in act of the Opposite Party. The policy was not renewed as a result that the cow was not find out at the time of asset inspection. The non renewal of the policy on 7.4.2006 is only due to the negligence on the part of the Complainant. Above all when ever the Opposite Party requested the Complainant to produce the documents with respect to the loan and insurance the Opposite Party deliberately evaded from it. The Opposite Party is not responsible for the non issuance Rs.20,000/- by the Insurance Company and any treatment charges as stated Rs.10,000/-. Under the instance of this Opposite Party the Complainant was not subjected to any loss or any expenses for travel. This Opposite Party has not requested the Complainant to settle the dispute, the averment in that respect is false and absolutely denied. The Opposite Party is not liable to give any amount towards the loss in various heads. The prayer of the complainant for Rs. 42,500/- is unreasonable and without any bases. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost to this Opposite Party. <br /> 4. Points in consideration are.<br /> 1.Is there any deficiency in service of the Opposite Party?.<br /> 2.Relief and cost. <br /> <br /> 5. Point No.1:- The case of the Complainant is that a loan was availed from the Opposite Party for the purchase of a milch cow which costs Rs.20,000/-. The Opposite Party did not remit the Insurance Premium for the renewal of the Insurance Policy. The Complainant's cow was affected of disease the milking was ceased and following that the cow. The Complainant when approached the Insurance Company to get the insurance amount it was known to him that the premium was not remitted and the policy ceased to exist. <br /> <br /> 6. The Opposite Party contented that the Complainant did not show the cow to the Opposite Party on physical verification. The renewal of the insurance is possible on realisation that the cow is in possession of the opposite party. The manager went to the house of the Complainant for verification of the cow but it was not seen. In the complaint it is averd that the Opposite Party showed negligence in remitting the premium regarding the tag which is the identification of the cow and the complaint itself is silent upon that . The complaint was filed on 18.7.2007 there is no pleading for the Complainant that the cow is dead. Whereas in the additional affidavit filed on 15.1.2008 the Complainant took twist in turn that the cow is dead on 29.12.2007. In support of the evidence of the Complainant, the Complainant filed documents in A1 to A11 and 2 witnesses are examined on the side of the Complainant. <br /> <br /> 7. The Opposite Party is examined as OPW1. Exts. B1 to B6 are marked and the Opposite Party is examined as OPW1. Ext. B4 is the copy of the petition filed before the Banking Ombudsman there in it is stated that the cow was shifted to somewhere else by the Complainant to test the Manager of the bank. The averment of the additional affidavit filed by the Complainant red together with Ext.B4 it is to be presumed that the insured cow was no more even at the time of filing the complaint. The Complainant deliberately not revealed this fact instead he has been filing the petitions one after the other before different authorities. Ext.B6 is the photo copy of the policy schedule the tag number shown in it is 11922 as per the terms and conditions of the policy schedule if the animal is died the tag is to be surrendered to consider the claim. In the case of this complaint the policy was discontinued and it was not under the insistence of the Opposite Party. And further the cattle was not shown to the Opposite Party for physical verification. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and the point No.1 is found accordingly. <br /> <br /> <br /> 8. Point No.2: The point No.1 is found not in favour of the complainant. A detail discussion of the point No.2 is not necessary.<br /> <br /> In the result the complainant is dismissed and no order upon cost.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the 12th day of June, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT: Sd/-<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER: Sd/-<br /> <br /> /True copy/ Sd/-<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.<br /> <br /> APPENDIX:<br /> <br /> Witness examined for Complainant:<br /> <br /> PW1 M.M. Karunakaran Complainant<br /> PW2 Jose LIC Agent<br /> PW3 Dr. Praveen Veterinery Surgen<br /> Witness examined for Opposite party:<br /> <br /> OPW1 Bhaskaran, Bank Officer.<br /> <br /> Exhibits marked for Complainant. <br /> A1 Copy of lawyer notice Dt.14.11.2006<br /> A2 AD Card Dt. 18.11.2006<br /> A3 Copy of letter <br /> A4 Postal receipt<br /> A5 Postal receipt <br /> A6 Photo No.5<br /> A7 Negative of Photographs<br /> A8 Photo copy of policy<br /> A9 Treatment Receipt Dt. 1.10.2005<br /> A10 Treatment Receipt Dt. 10.8.2005<br /> A11 Treatment Receipt Dt. 30.9.2005<br /> C1 Photograph<br /> C2 Copy of loan application<br /> C3 Copy of Memorandum of Agreement For Agricultural loans<br /> C4 Copy of cattle insurance proposal form<br /> Exhibits marked for Opposite party:<br /> B1 Series copy of Notice and complaint<br /> B2 Copy of complaint to District Collector, Wayanad.<br /> B3 Copy of complaint<br /> B4 Copy of complaint to banking Ombudsman <br /> B5 Letter to Bank Bank Manager Dt.12.12.2006<br /> B6 Photo copy of policy schedule<br /> B7 Reply notice sent by opposite party to Dy. Secretary, <br /> Banking Ombudsman, Thrivandrum.<br /> <br />