Karnataka

Bidar

CC/47/2015

INDAPPA S/O MADAPPA HALBARGA - Complainant(s)

Versus

P K P S BANK HALBARGA BIDAR - Opp.Party(s)

RAJKUMAR K

18 Mar 2017

ORDER

::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::

 

 

                                                                                                           C.C.No. 47/2015

 

                                                                                           Date of filing: 24/06/2015

 

                                                                                    Date of disposal : 18/03/2017

 

 

P R E S E N T:-              (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,

                                                                                         B.A., LL.B.,

                                                                                                    President.

    

                                      (2) Shri. Shankrappa,(Halipurgi)

                                                                          B.A.LL.B.,

                                                                                     Member.

 

 

COMPLAINANT:          Indappa, S/o Madappa,

                                      Age: 50 years, R/o Halbarga,

                                         Tq. Bhalki, Dist.Bidar.

                                        

 

 

                                     (By Shri. Rajkumar K., Advocate)

 

 

                                                      VERSUS

 

OPPONENT/S   :-             1.   The P.K.P.S. Bank,

                                             Br. Halbarga, Tq.Bhalki,

                                                Dist. Bidar.

 Represented by it’s Branch Officer.

 

                                       2.    The Branch Manager,

                                                United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,

                                                Basavashri Complex, # 8-10-268,

                                                Ganesh Maidan, Stadium road,

                                                Bidar.

 

 

 

 

                       

                            (O.P.No.1 By Shri.Mahadev A. Patil, Advocate)  

                            (O.P.No.2  By Shri.Mansoor Ahmed Khan ,Advocate )

 

 

 

 

::   J U D G M E N T  : :

 

 

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

 

                    The complainant is before this Forum filing a complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 against the O.Ps as described hereunder:-  

 

2.                The complainant is an agriculturist by profession.  The complainant has obtained loan from the O.P.no.1 under the “Halbarga Village Kamdhenu scheme” for purchase of she baffalo.  After release of loan for Rs.45,000/- by the O.P. no.1, the complainant has purchased the she buffalo from Devani Cattle Market on 10/01/2013 for                 Rs. 45,000/-.  Thereafter the complainant obtained the cattle insurance  policy no. 240602/47/13/01/00000491 in respect of she buffalo from the O.P.no.2 by paying the required insurance premium and the policy was valid from 02/08/2013 to 01/08/2016.

3.                 The complainant avers that, on 15/09/2013 the she buffalo of the complainant died due to snake bite.  The complainant has intimated the incident to the O.P.no.1 the Chief Executive Officer, PKPS Bank Ltd., Halbarga, Tq.Bhalki & Dist.Bidar, who had visited the spot and conducted  panchanama in the presence of two panchas and the Veterinary Doctor has conducted the Post Mortem and issued the P.M.report.   Complainant avers that the she buffalo of the complainant was hale and healthy before the death and it had the capacity to give 8 to 10 litres of milk daily.  Due to sudden death of she buffalo, the complainant sustained heavy loss to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and also lost his future earning from the said she buffalo.    As the said buffalo was insured with O.P.no.2, the complainant had approached the O.P.no.1 and 2 claiming compensation  towards the death of she buffalo due to snake bite.  Despite the policy was in force at the time of death, the O.Ps have not settled the claim and have not given any response to the complainant and suggested to approach to the higher authority of their company.  This act of the O.Ps shows that, there is negligence and  deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  Hence, the complainant has approached this Forum for compensation.

4.                   On service of the Court’s notices, the O.Ps have appeared before this Forum and filed their written versions respectively.   The O.P.no.1 in his written version stated that, the contents of para no.1 of the complaint regarding the O.P.no.1 is the PKPS Bank running the business for advancement of loan to the agriculturist under the various heads and schemes and the complainant being an agriculturist had obtained the loan from the O.P.no.1 under the “Halbarga village Kamadhenu scheme” for doing milk business are not disputed by the O.P.no.1.   The contents of the para no.2 of the complaint are denied regarding purchase of the buffalo from the Devani Cattle Market for Rs.45,000/- and the death of the she buffalo.  The complainant in collusion of the then Secretary of O.P.no.1 might have created false death report regarding death of she buffalo only to get the compensation.  The contents of para no.5 of the complaint regarding the death of she buffalo due to snake bite and the complainant had immediately informed the incident to the O.P.no.1 and C.E.O, PKPS Bank Halbarga and the later had visited the spot and conducted the panchanama  are incorrect and denied by the O.P.no.1.  The complainant to get compensation, with collusion of Vetrinary Doctor  created false documents and filed with false allegation before this Forum.  The contents of para no.6 of the complaint regarding the she buffalo of the complainant was hale and healthy before the death and was giving 8 to 10 litres of milk daily and after the death of she buffalo due to snake bite, the complainant had sustained loss to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and also lost his future earning from the said she buffalo, are allegations made only to claim the compensation hence denied by the O.P.no.1.

5.                 The content s of the para no.7, 8 & 9 of the complaint regarding the approach of the complainant to the O.Ps to claim the compensation due to death of she buffalo and the O.Ps have rejected the claim all are false and denied.   As a matter of fact the complainant never approached this O.P.no.1 with alleged request.  Neither the complainant is legally entitled to make such alleged request nor this O.P. is bound to answer the request, in fact no cause of action arose to file the complaint and there was no negligence on the part of the O.P.no.1 and the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and may be dismissed with costs.

6.              The O.P.no.2 in his written versions stated that, the complaint filed by the complainant is not only false and concocted, and also it is a fraudulent one and filed with ulterior motive to make a false claim for compensation.  The contents of para no.1 of the complaint is not disputed by the O.P.no.2 regarding the advancement of the loan to the complainant by the O.P.no.1.  In reply to para no.2 and 3 of the complaint the O.P.no.2 Company does not dispute that the complainant purchased she buffalo for Rs.45,000/- with financial assistance of the O.P.no.1 and it was insured with the O.P.no.2 Company under the policy covering the period from 02/08/2013 to 01/08/2016 and accordingly cattle insurance policy issued. 

 

7.                 The O.P.no.2 denied the contents of para no.4 and 5 of the complaint to the effect that the insured she buffalo died due to snake bite on 15/09/2013 and that he immediately informed the matter to O.P.no.1 and the O.P.no.1 had visited the spot and conducted panchanama in the presence of witnesses.  This shows that there is collusion between the complainant and O.P.no.1 in making false claim.  As per terms of the policy in case of death of insured cattle, immediate information is required to be given to the O.P.no.2 Company before the insured cattle is dealt with, so as to enable the insurance company to depute the surveyor and conduct survey for ascertaining the identity of the dead cattle and to confirm that it was the same cattle insured with O.P.no.2 Company and also to ascertain the circumstances under which the cattle is dead.  But, in the instant case, no intimation is given to the insurance Company and no claim is filed.  Therefore  since there is violation of condition of the policy, both on the part of complainant and O.P.no.1 this O.P.no.2 denies the liability, since the O.P.no.2 Company is denied of opportunity to investigate the cause of death and identity of the death cattle.  Apart from this, the Post Mortem Examination report of the cattle does not whisper anyting about the identity of the cattle upon which Post-Martem Examination is conducted, which also supports the contention of this O.P.no.2 that, the cattle was not the one which was insured with O.P.no.2 Company.

8.                   The contents of para no.6 of the complaint are false hence denied.  There is no merit in the contention of the complainant that the cattle was giving 8 to 10 litres of mil and that he sustained loss to the tune of Rs.50,000/- .   The contents of para no.7 of the complaitn are false hence denied.  It is false that the complainant approached this O.P. claiming compensation and that the O.P.no.2 had not given any response.  It is most humbly submitted that the O.P.no.2 has no intimation of death of insured cattle and even the complainant or O.P.no.1 did not make any claim for compensation by furnishing the required documents and claim for.  Even the O.P.no.2 company so far has not received any claim from complainant, therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant is premature one and it is not tenable.  It is not the case of the complainant from the pleadings that he had made claim for compensation before O.P.no.2 and that his claim is rejected or repudiated, therefore the complaint is without any cause of action and not tenable.

9.              The contents of para n o.8 of the complaint are also false, hence denied.  It is denied that on 17/03/2015 the complainant had given letter to O.P.no.2 company clailming compensation.  No such letter was given by the complainant.  Moreover, when admittedly the complainant had not made claim for compensation as per terms of the policy, his contention that he had given letter cannot be believed.  That the claim of compensation made by the complainant in para no.9 of the complaint is false and exorbitant one.  There is no merit in the claim made by the complainant.  When the complainant had not made any claim before O.P.no.2 and when his claim was neither rejected nor repudiated his filing complaint directly before this Forum is illegal and not maintainable therefore, the complaint is fit to be dismissed.

 

10.         Both sides, have filed their evidence affidavits along with documents, written arguments reiterating their respective stands, so also documents listed at the end of this order, distinctly.

 

11.         Considering the rival contentions of the parties, the following points arise for our consideration:-

 

 

1. Does the complainant prove that, there has been a deficiency of service in the part of the Opponents?

 

 

2. What order ?

 

 

 

12.         Our answers to the points stated above are as follows:-

 

               1.   In the affirmative.

               2. As per the final order, for the following:

 

 

                                                                                             

:: REASONS ::

 

13.                   In the instant case, the availment of loan from opponent No.1 to purchase a she buffalo for carrying on the business of dairy in the part of the complainant and later obtaining an insurance from the opponent No.2 are subtly admitted by the O.P.s. The opponent No.1 is but brewing a clever concoction that, the complainant was hand in glove with the former’s Secretary and also with the Veterinary Doctor to create false case.  Documents produced by the complainant but projects a legible, truth full picture.  On 16.09.2013, the complainant had submitted a report (ExP1) to the chief Executive Officer of O.P.No.1 Bank, as a consequence of which, the later had conducted a spot Mahazar vide Ex.P.2, affirming the death of the buffalo for which the loan was granted to the complainant.  Ex.P.3 evidences the purchase of the buffalo against a cost of Rs.45,000/-.  The fitness certificate issued by the Veterinary doctor concerned certifies the fitness of the animal and Ex.P-5 the post-mortem report confirms  the cause of the death of the bovine  due to snake bite with all other relevant symptoms.  Ex.P.6 evidences the report of death to the C.E.O. of the O.P.No.1 Bank and Ex.P.7 evidences the death intimation to the Insurer, O.P.No.2 which was acknowledged by the later on 17.03.2015.  Ex.P.8 is the copy of the cattle insurance certificate issued in favour of the complainant, in which the insured amount is seen as Rs.40,000/-.

 

14.                   Now, sitting down to analyze the crux of the problem, we are intrigued by the strange and deplorable defence of the O.P.No.1.  It claims that, the complainant was hand in glove with its’ own secretary to raise a false claim, oblivious of the fact that, the O.P.No.1 bank is vicariously liable (in the civil side) for the misfeasance/malfeasance/nonfeasance of its own employee, in whatever manner.  Hence, the entire defence of O.P.No.1 is struck off from the record.

 

15.                   As far as the defence of the O.P.No.2.  Insurance company is concerned, there is of course same merits in its’ claim that, immediate death information of the buffalo was not lodged with it.  However, it was also incumbent upon the O.P. No.1, to convey such intimation to the Insurer, just after receiving the information vide Ex.P-1 on 16.09.2013, but it has not happened.

 

16.                   However, the O.P.No.2 Insurance Co. cannot wash its’ hands off from the liability, since after being notified ultimately on 17.03.2015, vide Ex.P-7 no efforts have been made by it to further enquire about the matter.  Exasperated by the inaction of both opponents, the complainant/ consumer is before this forum and no fault can be found with him. His claims are genuine and hence we answer the Point No.1 accordingly.

 

17.                   Point No.2.  Arrieving at the juncture to assess the loss of the complainant, we find that, he had insured the bovine vide Ex.P-8 against a cost of Rs.40,000/-.  He would be entitled for such amount only and nothing more. The O.P.No.1 being the financier of the buffalo purchase would have the lien over such amount only, subject to the payment by the insurer and hence we proceed to pass the following:-

 

: : ORDER : :

 

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The O.P. No.2  is directed to reimburse the sum of insured amount of Rs.40,000/-(forty thousand only) to the complainant, together with interest @ 12% p.a. on the said sum, accrued from the date of death of the bovine i.e., 15.09.2013, till the date of realisation.
3. Out of the said sum, the O.P.No.1 would have a lien over a sum of Rs.40,000/-(forty thousand only) being the financier.
4. Both opponents are held liable to pay a compensation amount of Rs.10,000/-(Ten thousand only) jointly and severally to the complainant, together with litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-(Five thousand only).
5. Four weeks time is granted for the implementation of the order.

 

 

 

   ( Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 18^th   day of March-2017 )

 

 

 

 

Sri. Shankrappa H.                                          Sri. Jagannath Prasad                 

        Member                                                                  President

 

 

 

Documents filed by the complainant.

 

1. Ex.P.1- Letter date:16.09.2015 to the O.P.NO.1 (copy).
2. Ex.P.2-  Panchanama (copy).
3. Ex.P.3- Purchase bill of the bovine(copy).
4. Ex.P.4-Fitness Certificate ofthe animal (copy).
5. Ex.P.5-  Postmortem report (copy).
6. Ex.P.6-Letter of complainant date: 29.09.2013 addressed to C.E.O.
               District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. date: 29.09.2013
               (acknowledged copy).
7. Ex.P.7-Letter addressed to O.P.NO.2 date.17.03.2015
               (Acknowledged copy).

 

 

 

 

 

 

8. Ex.P.8- Insurance certificate (copy).

 

Documents filed by the O.Ps

• Nil  -

 

 

Sri. Shankrappa H.,                                          Sri. Jagannath Prasad,                 

        Member                                                                     President.

 

 

Rulings of Higher Fora

 

Complainant.

 

1.         II(2008) CPJ 542 ( Punjab State Commission) National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s Pritam Singh and others.

 

Opponents.

 

            Nil

 

 

 

Sri. Shankrappa H.,                                          Sri. Jagannath Prasad,                 

        Member                                                                     President.

 

 

Sb.