Complainant  Dhirendra Saw filed this complaint with a claim of Rs. 1,05,000/- With 12% from the death of Milch Cattles and compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation coast

2          The case of the complainant is that he, for the purpose of milch business, purchased three cows @ Rs.35,000/- each on loan granted by O.P. No.2 State Bank of India, Peterwar Branch. The cows were insured with O.P. No.1, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and accordingly tag numbers were issued for each cow. In the due course of time all three cows died one after another. Post Mortem of cows were done and simultaneously, complainant informed O.P. No.2 in writing. There after O.P. No.2 issued letter to O.P. No.1 for settlement of claim of the Milch Cattles

It is further the case of complainant that inspite of the information and letter given, O.P. No.1 has not settled the claim. This is deficiency in service on the part of O.P. No.1 and O.P. NO.2

Therefore, a legal notice on 21-05-2015, was sent to O.P. No.1 which was replied by O.P. No.1 on 15-06-2015 shows, non- settlement of the claim hence this case is filed.

3          Following documents have been filed in support.

            Anx-1 and 1/1 Copy of letters of complainant to O.P. NO.2

            Anx-2 Post Mortem reports of all three cows vide P.M. No. 15,18and 19.

            Anx-3 Copy of tag no. 17468.

            Anx-4 Copy of letter of O.P. No.2 to O.P. No.1 dated 13-11-2014.

            Anx-5 Copy of Legal notice to O.P. No.1 dated 21-05-2015.

            Anx-6 Copy of reply of Legal Notice by O.P. No.1 dated 15-06-2015

4          O.P. No.2 appeared and filed W.S. stating therein that, the complaint is not maintainable against this O.P. It is submitted that the complainant purchased the cows and the price were paid by this O.P. from the sanctioned loan amount. It is further submitted, complainant is not entitled to claim any amount from the bank as there is no such clause in the Loan Agreement that, in case of death of the cows, the O.P. No.2 would be liable to pay the claim since the cows were insured, as such it is the liability of O.P. No.1 to settle the claim. Hence prayer has been made to dismiss the case with cost against this O.P.

            No document has been filed by O.P. No.2

5          O.P. No.1, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. also appeared and filed W.S. It is submitted that this complaint is not   legally maintainable as there is no cause of action for the present case.

 It is also submitted that tag no. 17477 is not in existence in the policy paper, however after receiving the information, the insurance Co. made investigation through investigator and report was submitted on 08-05-2015.  Complainant had also not submitted the tag No. 17477 and as per policy condition  ” No Tag No Claim”, as such the complainant is not entitled to get any relief so sought.

6          O.P. No.1 has filed following documents in support

            Anx-A Copy of policy schedule.

            Anx-B Copy of Claim Form.

            Anx-C Copy of letter of O.P. No.1 to O.P. No.2 for submission of ear tags, dated 06-02-2015.

            Anx-D Copy of letter of O.P. No.1 to O.P. No.2 for submission of relevant documents, dated 19-03-2015.

            Anx-E Copy of investigation report of surveyor dated 08-05-2015.

FINDINGS

7          At the very outset, the complainant has admitted in the complaint petition that the cows were purchased on Loan for business of milk.

            The production of milk of all three cows for which the insurance has been claimed were for commercial purpose and no where it is claimed to sale milk for livelihood which does not bring the complainant under the ambit of “Consumer” as per section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of C.P. Act. Thus, the complainant is not a consumer and the dispute is also not a Consumer dispute.

                        Therefore the claim of the complainant cannot be accepted, as such, this complaint is not maintainable, accordingly it is hereby dismissed.