Presents:-
- Sri P.Samantara,President.
- Sri G.K.Rath, Member.
Dated,Bolangir the 18th day of November 2015.
C.C.No. 55 of 2014.
Maa Laxmi Self Help Group, At- Ainlachua,P.O- Athgaon
P.S.Bolangir Sadar,Dist- Bolangir, Represented through it’s
President Smt.Dipa Sagar w/o.Baisakhu Sagar.
.. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
1.United Bank of India,Bolangir Branch, At-Hotel Surya Complex,
Samaleswari Chowk,Bolangir Town, P.O/P.S/Dist-Bolangir,
Represented through it’s Branch Manager.
2.The New India Assurance Co.Ltd, Bolangir Branch,
At-Hotel Surya Complex, Samaleswari Chowk, Bolangir Town,
P.O/P.S/Dist-Bolangir, represented through it’s Branch Manager
.. .. Opp.Parties.
Adv.for the complainant-M/S. A.K.Mishra & Associates.
Adv.for the O.P.No.1 - Sri A.K.Sarangi.
Adv.for the O.P.No.2 . Sri R.K.Mohakur.
Date of filing of the case-08.03.2014
Date of order -18.11.2015
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara, President.
In brief, the complainant represents Maa Laxmi self Help Group and avails the service of United Bank of India and The New India Assurance Co. Ltd ensuring insurance against the goats reared by SHG-MAA Laxmi”.The SHG group was registered under Societies Registration Act vide Regd.No.-6649-29 of 2011-2012.
The SHG also averred, has availed a loan of Rs 1, 57,500/- on dt.20.01.2011 against Account No.-1409306719155. It is stated the SHG suffered demise of goats against policy No.55090247113400000147 and Policy No.-55090247103400207 and the claim form was issued respectively 0000012, 0000014 and 0000015.
The O.P has not settled the claim but issued one letter on dated 18.03.2013 stating as per VAS certificate the claim is repudiated as the colour of the goat is mismatched with PM report conducted and the tag number issued.
Prayed the O.Ps may be directed to settle the claims and compensate for the loss, harassment and mental agony sustained. Relied on affidavit.
In pursuant to notice, the O.P.1 appeared and did not file any version, rather dragging the case till its disposal.
The O.P.2 appeared and file the version, contending the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and liable to be dismissed in limine and admitted the company is a Government of India Undertaking and adopt some rules and regulation formulated by IRDA.
The SHG Group was insured under the sheep and goat Insurance policy bearing No.550902/47/11/34/00000147 for a period of three years from 08.07.2011 to 07.07.2014 and other policy No.550902/47/10/34/002/00207 covered from 21.01.2011 to 20.01.2014
Further admitting the O.P.2 has received claim intimation demise of two goats under tag No.62268 and 62269 and Policy No-47/11/34/00000147 and Tag No.53372 under policy No.47/11/34/002/00207 and the registered claim No.0000012, 0000014 and 0000015 for tag No.62268, 62269 and 53372 respectively.
In verification, it is surfaced the issued ear tags do not match to the demised goats tag and also the colour. The photos taken for tag No.62268 is white and policy issuance tag reveals to be black, so also the tag No.62268 is white and policy issuance tag reveals to is black, so also the tag No.62269 and 53372 colour do not conform to the original veterinary tagged report. The discrepancy in colour and tag number warrants the repudiation. Praying the complaint needs to be dismissed as the case relates to a vexatious litigation. Relied on claim intimation copy, post mortem report, Veterinary health certificate and intimation of closure of claim and photographs in original.
Heard and perused the materials on record. On perusal we come across, no document is filed by the complainant on its dispute or complaint.
The process of adjudication needs original insurance policy, Veterinary Certificate with list of 42 nos of goats against tag numbers claimed and the claim form intimated to the insurer. We feel the deliberate failure not to file any version and dragging the case on long adjournment is non-deligent in action on the part of O.P.1, in his duty towards the insured is also a deficient recourse.
The O.P.2 although appeared and made the version in too late but we found the answered is well documented and convincing.
We found the claim made by the complainant is not well founded. The tag numbers claimed to have demised is not conforming to the original issued policy tag numbers and colours. There is great hiatus between the claim made on three numbers of tag and the post mortem conducted thereon. The discrepancy neither well adduced by the complainant nor documentation placed as the description on the complaint. Strict perusal of document does not allow that the case has any merit so in absence of merit the case is hereby dismissed.
However, the O.P.1 is hereby directed to deposit a sum of Rs 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) in the State Consumer Welfare Fund, for not filing the version and dragging the case under flimsy grounds till disposal, within 30 days of this order, failing which interest @ 12% per annum will accrue till realisation in communication to this Forum.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015.
(G.K.Rath) (P.Samantara)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
