Complaint is filed on 11-07-2008
Compliant disposed on 31-03-2009
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM::AT:: K A R I M N A G A R
PRESENT: KUM. G.V.N.R. BHANUMATHI, M.A. B.L.,Ist ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE & PRESIDENT (F.A.C.)
AND
SMT. E. LAXMI, M.A.LL.B., MEMBER
TUESday, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND NINE
CONSUMER complaint NO. 94 OF 2008
Between:
Appala Thirmala, W/o Shenker, age 23 years, Occ: Milk vendor R/o. Kishtampet (v) of Veenavanka mandal of district Karimnagar.
…Complainant
AND
- The Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Challur Branch, Post Challur (v) of Veenavanka mandal district Karimnagar.
- The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Ramagundam Divisional Office, Post Box No.36, Medipally Road, NTPC, Jyothi Nagar – 505 215, District Karimnagar.
…Opposite Parties
This complaint is coming up before us for final hearing on 25-03-2009, in the presence of Sri M. Mahender, Advocate for complainant, and Sri V.Srinivas, Advocate for opposite party no1, and Mehaboob Hussain, Advocate for opposite party no.2, and on perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum passed the following:
::ORDER::
1. This complaint is filed under Sec 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- with interest @ 12% P.A. and Rs.3,000/- towards compensation, damages and costs.
2. The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a Cow for Rs.10,000/- by obtaining loan from opposite party no.1. At the time of sanctioning the loan the opposite party no.1 asked the complainant to obtain Insurance Policy from the opposite party no.2. Accordingly the complainant paid prescribed premium to the opposite party no.2 through opposite party no.1 and on receipt of the same opposite party no.2 issued Insurance Policy bearing no.0313/2005 with Ear Tag No.73690 for an assured sum of Rs.10,000/-. The Insured Cow died on 25.4.2006 and on its death the Veterinary Doctor conducted Postmortem Examination on it and issued P.M.E. Report. The complainant informed the opposite party no.1 about death of the said Cow and submitted Claim form enclosing all the relevant documents and Ear Tag claiming assured sum of Rs.10,000/- from opposite party no.2 as there is Insurance coverage. On receipt of it the opposite party no.1 forwarded the claim along with their letter to opposite party no.2 requesting them to pay assured sum. After receiving the claim, the opposite party no.2 asked the opposite party no.1 to send P.M.E. Report and Ear Tag for which opposite party no.1 replied that the said document and Ear Tag were already sent to them and asked opposite party no.2 to pay the sum assured. Even after lapse of one year period the opposite party no.1 and opposite party no.2 failed to pay the assured sum of Rs.10,000/-. The complainant submits that there is Insurance Coverage for the dead Cow and the opposite parties are under an obligation to pay the assured sum and failure to pay constitutes deficiency of service. Therefore, the complainant sought direction for payment of Rs.10,000/- along with interest, damages, compensation and costs.
3. The opposite party no.1 filed counter admitting about purchase of Cow by the complainant and also obtaining loan of Rs.10,000/- from their Bank. The opposite party no.1 also admitted that the said Cow was insured with opposite party no.2. In the third week of May 2006 the opposite party no.1 received information from the complainant about the death of the Cow through a claim form and the same was forwarded to opposite party no.2 to settle the claim and they are not aware of the settlement till receipt of notices from this FORUM. It is further submitted by the opposite party no.1 that there is no obligation on their part to settle the claim as they have only forwarded the death claim to the opposite party no.2 as such there is no deficiency of service on their part. Hence, the opposite party no.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The opposite party no.2 filed counter submitting that the complainant purchased a Cow by obtaining loan from opposite party no.1 and that the complainant obtained Insurance Policy for the said Cow from the opposite party no.2 by paying the required premium through the Bank. The said policy is in force from 27.1.2006 to 26.1.2007. When a claim is received from the opposite party no.1, it was found that the Ear Tag was not sent and requested the opposite party no.1 to send the same but it was replied that the Ear Tag was already forwarded to them. The opposite party no.2 submits that as per terms and conditions of the Policy it is the duty of the complainant to send Ear Tag to ascertain the death of the Cow. But as the complainant did not send the Ear Tag, the opposite party no.2 repudiated the claim as the death of Insured Cow was not established. The opposite party no.2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that there is no deficiency of service on their part as the complainant failed to submit the Ear Tag.
5. The complainant filed her Proof Affidavit reiterating the contents of the complaint and filed documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to A6. Ex.A1 is the copy of Death Certificate. Ex.A2 is the copy of claim form. Ex.A3 is copy of Live Stock Veterinary Certificate. Ex.A4 is the copy of letter addressed to opposite party no.2 by the opposite party no.1 in respect of claim Dt: 2.2.2007. Ex.A5 is the copy of letter from opposite party no.2 addressed to opposite party no.1, Dt: 9.1.2009 requesting to send the tags relating to the cattle of complainant. Ex.A6 is the copy of letter from opposite party no.2 addressed to opposite party no.1 Dt: 12.1.2007 requesting to send the required documents at an early date.
6. The opposite party no.1 filed Affidavit of the Branch Manager reiterating the averments made in their counter and filed office copy of the letter Dt: 25.5.2006 addressed to opposite party no.2, which is marked as Ex.B1. The opposite party no.2 filed Proof Affidavit of its Divisional Manager reiterating the contents of the counter filed by them.
7. The points for consideration are:
(1) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
(2) If so, to what relief the complainant is entitled?
8. It is contended by the Counsel for the complainant that the Cow purchased by the complainant by obtaining loan from the opposite party no.1 is insured with opposite party no.2 for a sum of Rs.10,000/-. During subsistence of the said policy the said Cow died on 25.4.2006 and the Veterinary Doctor conducted the Postmortem on it. He has issued Death Certificate under Ex.A1 and Ex.A3. After receipt of Death Certificate the complainant submitted Insurance claim form under Ex.A2 to the opposite party no.2 through opposite party no.1 claiming for payment of the sum assured. In turn the opposite party no.1 forwarded the claim to the opposite party no.2 and there were communications by exchange of letters between them under Ex.A4 to Ex.A5. Inspite of submission of all the documents opposite party no.2 rejected the claim on the ground that the Ear Tag is not submitted to them. It is further contended that the complainant submitted Ear Tag to the opposite party no.1 along with other documents which clearly establish that the Insured Cow died during subsistence of the policy. The learned counsel for the complainant relied on the Judgments reported in 2004 (1) CPC at page 573 and 2004 (1) CPC at page 467. it is further contended that without any valid reason opposite party no.2 repudiated the claim. As per the terms of the policy the opposite parties are liable to pay assured sum of Rs.10,000/- with interest, compensation and costs.
9. It is contended by the opposite party no.1 that on receipt of the claim from the complainant it was forwarded to opposite party no.2 who is liable to pay the assured sum. The opposite party no.1 submitted the letter under Ex.B1 addressed to opposite party no.2 informing them that they are sending Death Certificate, photographs with Negatives and Ear Tags. Since there is no delay in forwarding the claim the opposite party no.1 claimed that there is no deficiency of service on their part.
10. It is contended by the opposite party no.2 that the complainant did not send Ear Tag to them and the Death of Insured Cow is not established and that as per the terms and conditions of the policy when there is No Tag No claim is allowed. As the Ear Tag was not received by them they have repudiated the claim, as such there is no deficiency of service on their part.
11. As seen from the contents of complaint and counter filed by both the parties to the case it is not in dispute about purchasing of the Cow by the complainant and also about obtaining Insurance coverage for Rs.10,000/- from the opposite party no.2. By filing documents under Ex.A1 to A6 the complainant established the fact that she made a claim to the opposite party no.1 and opposite party no.2 for payment of assured sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of death of the Insured Cow. The opposite party no.2 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the Ear Tag of the dead Insured Cow is not submitted by the complainant. But a perusal of the letter under Ex.B1 sent by opposite party no.1 Dt: 25.5.2006 to opposite party no.2 clearly discloses that the Death Certificate, Photoes, Negatives and Tags were sent to opposite party no.2 requesting them to send claim form. The said letter clearly disputes the allegation of opposite party no.2 about non-receipt of Ear Tag. The opposite party no.2 further contended that as per the terms and conditions of the policy when there is no Tag there is No claim. In fact the complainant submitted all the required documents along with Ear Tag.
12. The judgments relied on by the complainant rendered by Hon'ble State Commission, Chandigarh and also Uttaranchal it is held that the Insurance Company can't reject the claim for payment of sum assured on the ground of non-production of Ear Tags. In fact the Postmortem Report, Death Certificate and recommendation made by the opposite party no.1, clearly established the fact of death of Insured Cow. Admittedly the Insurance Policy issued by opposite party no.2 is valid during the period between 27.1.2006 and 26.1.2007 and the Insured Cow died on 25.4.2006 which is within the period of Insurance coverage. When the opposite party no.2 issued policy undertaking to pay an assured sum of Rs.10,000/- in case of death of the Cow, non-payment constitutes deficiency of service. Admittedly the Insurance premium was paid through opposite party no.1 by deducting the same from the loan amount, the opposite party no.1 is also liable to answer the claim of the complainant. In view of the said reasons, we hold, that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party no.1 and No.2. Hence the opposite party no.1 and No.2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- being the assured sum with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till the date of realization along with Rs.500/- towards costs of the complaint.
13. In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party no.1 & No.2 jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 11.7.2008 till the date of realization and Rs.500/- towards costs of the complaint within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer and after correction, the orders pronounced by us in the open court this the 31st day of March, 2009.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
NO ORAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ADDUCED ON EITHER SIDE FOR COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 is the copy of Death Certificate.
Ex.A2 is the copy of claim form.
Ex.A3 is copy of Live Stock Veterinary Certificate.
Ex.A4 is the copy of letter addressed to opposite party no.2 by the opposite party no.1 in respect of claim Dt: 2.2.2007.
Ex.A5 is the copy of letter from opposite party no.2 addressed to opposite party no.1, Dt: 9.1.2009.
Ex.A6 is the copy of letter from opposite party no.2 addressed to opposite party no.1 Dt: 12.1.2007.
FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:
Ex.B1 is the office copy of the letter Dt: 25.5.2006 addressed to opposite party no.2.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
