Heard learned counsel for both sides.

2.      Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.   The factual matrix leading to the case of the complainant is that the complainant has purchased a Jersey cow  by incurring loan from Odisha Gramya Bank and insured the cow with OP No.2 for assured sum of Rs.25,000/-for the period from 7.2.2014 to 6.2.2017 by paying premium of Rs.3,300/-. It is alleged inter alia that during currency of the policy, the cow died. The V.A.S. has already attended the postmortem. Thereafter, the claim was made before OP No.2 but it was repudiated. Challenging the said repudiation, complaint was filed by the complainant.

4.      OP No.1 did not file written version and was set ex parte.

5.      OP No.2 filed written version stating that the case is not maintainable and the complainant failed to perform his part of contract with regard to production of ear tag of the cow. OP No.2 stated to have issued letter to the complainant to submit the tag but no tag was submitted. Therefore, they have justified in repudiating the claim.

6.      After hearing both parties, learned District Forum has passed the following impugned order:-

                             “xxx   xxx   xxx

            The complainant be and the same is allowed against OPs on contest. Both the OPs are directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as claim  Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation equally @50:50 ratio to the complaint within 30 days for the date of issue of this order failing which interest @9% with quarterly rests shall be charged from the date of repudiation to the date of payment.”

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by passing the impugned order with direction to the OPs including appellant to pay Rs.25,000/- as claimed, Rs.5.000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation because it is the insurance company - OP No.1 who is to pay compensation. Due to their inaction or declaration of ‘no tag no claim’,  the complainant filed the complaint.

8.      Since the appellant Bank has no any role in repudiating the claim or payment of the insurance amount for the cow, the impugned order saddling the appellant with joint liability to pay compensation is illegal. He submitted that the learned District Forum ought to have applied judicial mind to the facts that the compensation is payable by OP No.2 but not by OP No.1. Moreover, he submitted that the insurance company – OP No.2 has not filed any appeal and has complied the impugned order by payment of Rs.16,000/- to the complainant. So, he submitted to set aside the impugned order so far the liability of OP No.1 to pay any claim.

9.      Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that he has purchased the cow admittedly and insured the same with the OP No.2 - insurance company. The cow died during currency of the policy. He submitted that he has already informed OP No.1 about missing of tag and also there is no condition precedent to avail the claimed amount with compensation, the tag should be  mandated to be filed along with claim. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order is correct and legal and the rest of the compensation should be paid by OP No.1 - appellant.

10.    Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that they have already paid the part of their compensation to the complainant and it is for the appellant to pay rest of the claim. Since they have already complied their part of impugned order, they have nothing to pay except the fact that OP No.1 is equally responsible with OP No.2 for the reasons that the policy stands in the name of OP No.1. Therefore, he submitted that there was no any deficiency of service on their part. As the ear tag was not supplied,   in spite of letters to the complainant and OP No.1 on 19.11.2014, 9.1.2015 and 19.2.2015, they have no deficiency of service in repudiating of claim. So far liability of compensation and cost are concerned against OP No.2, latter has complied the impugned order.

11.   Considered the submission of learned counsel for  the  parties and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

12.    It is for the complainant to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

13.     In this case, it is admitted fact that the cow was purchased by the complainant on being financed by OP No.1. It is not in dispute that the cow during subsistence of the insurance policy expired and the V.A.S. has  conducted post mortem examination. It also appears that on 10.10.2014 the Block Development Officer has written to the OPs that the cow belonging to complainant has lost his ear tag before death while it was grazing. When there is report of the Block Development Officer concerned, the subsequent letter by the insurance company was issued for no basis. However, they have repudiated the claim on 19.2.2015 on the basis of “no tag no claim”. There is a clause in the policy to show that ear tag should be surrendered at the time of claim otherwise it would be no claim. When the B.D.O. a responsible Officer has already informed that  before death of the cow the tag has been missed but the tag number is supplied, this clause cannot be made available to deny claim. Besides, the insurance company OP No.2 has not challenged the claimed amount payable by the insurance company as ordered by the learned District Forum.

14.    Moreover, the cases of both sides are that the insurance company has already complied his part of the order.  Now question comes whether the Bank could be responsible jointly or not. It is the cow who has been insured through OP No.1 with OP No.2. The sum assured Rs.25,000/- would be payable by the insurance company in case of death of the insured cow. Since the OPs have been directed to pay jointly, this Commission is of the view that it is OP No.2 who is required to pay the entire sum assured. Therefore, there is merit with the appeal filed by OP No.1. Hence, while agreeing to the finding of the learned District Forum, this Commission hereby direct OP No.2 to pay the entire amount of Rs.25,000/- as  ordered besides Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation. Since there is no liability of OP No.1 involved, he is exonerated from the entire liability.

15.    The appeal is allowed with modification of the impugned order that OP No.2 is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- the insurance amount besides compensation of Rs.3,000/-  and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of litigation. No cost.

          DFR be sent back forthwith.

          The statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellant with interest accrued thereon, if any on proper identification.

          Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.