Presented by Smt. A.Behera, Member .

Complainant alleges deficiency of service against the Opposite Parties in this complaint while disbursing the insurance amount so filing of the case happened.

Facts:-

Complainant is a villager who purchased two cows being financed by Opposite Party No.1(one) @ Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand)only each for one cow which were duly insured by the Opposite Party No.2(two) on payment of the required sum as premium. Insurance policy issued to the Complainant on Dt.02/09/2011 one of the cow bearing Tag(old) 545/NIA Tag (New) 509399/OIC died, while the insurance policy was intact. Complainant filed claim to receive the insurance amount before the Opposite Party No.2(two) via Opposite Party No.1(one). But he was not heard even for more than one years of filing of he claim fro which he suffered multifarious losses Complainant claimed.

1. Waiver of the loan amount i.e. Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand)only.

2. Insurance claim amount Rs. 17,000/-(Rupees seventeen thousand)only.

3. Compensation Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only a total sum of Rs. 92,000/-(Rupees ninety two thousand)only from the Opposite Parties.

Complainant relied on the following documents which he filed before the Forum to substantiate which he filed before the Forum to substantiate his grievance.

1. Xerox copies if Insurance Policy claim papers before Opposite Party No.2(two).

2. Xerox copies if P.M. Report by VAS, Thuapali and forward letter Dt.05/09/2011.

3. Xerox copies of forwarding letters of BM/OP No.1(one) to Opposite Party No.2(two).

4. Xerox copies of application of Complainant to Opposite Party No.1(one).

5. Photograph of the cow.

Opposite Parties duly noticed and appeared. Opposite Party No.1(one) filed their version on Dt.24/06/2013 denying the charges leveled against them and relied on the following documents to substantiate their contention.

Xerox copies of:-

1. First information letter - Exhibit- A

2. Letter No. RRB/INS/344 Dt.17/09/2011 of Branch Manager, UGB, Thuapali- Exhibit- B.

3. Letter No. 88 Dt.12/07/2011 of VAS Bheden, Exhibit-C.

4. Letter No. RBB/INS/274 Dt.16/08/2011 fo the B.M., UGB, Thuapali, Exhibit-D

5. Letter of Complainant Gurudev Pani. Exhibit-E.

6. Letter No. RRB/INS/627 Dt.06/01/2012 from the B.M., U.G.B Thuapali, Exhibit-F.

7. Letter No. RRB/INS/261 Dt. 09/10/2012 from the B.M., UGB Thuapali to Divisional Manager, O.I.C., Bhubaneswar, Ehibit-G.

8. Letter Dt.06/12/2012 from Divisional Manager, OIC., Bhubaneswar to B.M., UGB, Thuapali, Exhibit-H.

9. Bank Advocate's Petition to DCDRF, Exhibit-I.

10. Letter No. UGB/ADV/258 Dt.06/03/2013 by B.M., UGB Thuapali to Complainant, Exhibit-J.

Opposite Party No.2(two) filed their version on Dt.25/05/2013 and denied all the allegations issued against them and prayed dismissal of the complainant.

Opposite Party No.2(two) filed the following documents in support of their contention.

1. Xerox copy of insurance policy No.345300/47/2011/845. Exhibit-A1.

2. Xerox copy of letter No. RRB/INS/344 by Opposite Party No.1(one) to Opposite Party No.2(two). Exhibit-B1

3. Xerox copy of letter RRB/INS/261 by Opposite Party No.1(one) to Opposite Party No.2(two). Exhibit-C1.

4. Xerox copy of letter of recommendation for settlement of claim, Exhibit-D1.

5. Xerox copy of endorsement schedule of policy about charge of Tag No. Exhibit-E1.

6. Xerox copy of Note Sheet of settlement of claim. Exhibit-F1.

7. Xerox copy of claim payment voucher, Exhibit-G1.

8. Xerox copy of letter of Opposite Party No.2(two) for sending cheque to Opposite Party No.1(one). Exhibit-H1.

9. Xerox copy of postal receipt, Exhibit-I1.

10. Xerox copy of discharge voucher and receipt of cheque, Exhibit-J1.

Heard the matter with great details when the counsels of each party submitted their versions about the issue. Gone through the case record and various documents filed by each of the Party and found:-

1. That the purchase of the cow through financing by Opposite Party No.1(one) and Insurance by Opposite Party No.2(two) as well as death of the cow, postmortem by VAS delayed submission of first information of death of the cow changing of tag are admitted facts in the case by all the Parties.

2. Opposite Party No.1(one), the financing Bank was in direct connection with the Complainant and helped in the process of insurance as well as claim settlement by the Opposite Party No.2(two).

3. Delay in informing the death of the cow is for about 10(ten) days although the conditions in the financing agreement is that information must be given within 24(twenty four) hours of the death of the cow. This is admitted fact by all the Parties concerned. But point to be noted here even though Opposite Party No.2(two) has expressed positive gesture by not repudiating the claim fro violation of conditions from the part of the Complainant.

4. It is submitted that, after submission of claim for death of the cow loss of Tag is discovered and the process to charge the Tag occurred and a New tag was issued and deposited on Dt.03/01/2012 but the new number was already informed in a letter of the Complainant to Opposite Party No.1(one) on Dt.12/09/2011 duly received. So it seems that the charging of Tag no whether happened before the death of the cow on done later is not clear to this Forum as alleged by the Opposite Parties deposit of charged new Tag is envisaged from letter of the Complainant Dt.08/12/2012 duly endorsed by the VAS.

5. Insurance claim settled for Rs. 15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand)only and received from Attabira Branch on Dt.21/01/2013 a sum of Rs. 14,920/-(Rupees fourteen thousand nine hundred twenty)only after deduction of collection charges.

6. Opposite Party No.1(one) filed their written agreement on Dt.01/08/2014 explaining details further about the occurance of events and alleged that the Complainant have not come to the Forum with clean hands and did not disclosed many important relevant facts.

7. Opposite Party No.2(two) field their memo if citations and agreement on Dt. 04/08/2014. Although the citations are related to consumer laws do not show significant relevance to the complaint in issue.

8. Sending of final insurance claim to Opposite Party No.1(one) and collection of the same by Opposite Party No.1(one) is submitted and not being credited to the loan account of the Complainant is also admitted by Opposite Party No.1(one) because of this dispute being raised since Dt.14/11/2012 and the cheque was issued on Dt.06/12/2012 and got collected by the Opposite Party No.1(one) on Dt.21/02/2013.

9. Interestingly, No details of the date of financing of the cows, date of purchase of the cow in issue or any further details about the status of Ist cow death is revealed before this Forum by any of the Parties.

10. A series of documents are filed with the case record showing communications between the Complainant with the Opposite Party No.1(one), Opposite Party No.1(one) with Opposite Party No.2(two) and station of these Parties are different, in fact Opposite Party No.2(two) head office is situated at Bhubaneswar where in both Complainant and Opposite Party No.1(one) are dependent.

11. From the documents and submissions it has come out that Opposite Party No.1(one) asked for the set of claim form on Dt.08/12/2011 for the second time and it was said to be issued on Dt.30/12/2011 by Opposite Party No.2(two) but when received by Opposite Party No.1(one) and when the same is supplied to the Complainant is not revealed by any Party.

12. The letter setling the final claim speaks about receipt of completed claim papers with all necessary documents on Dt.06/11/2012 and cheque was issued on Dt.06/12/2012. Complainant remained silent on this point hence Forum takes it.

13. Final sum assured amount for the insurance in issue was Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only and Opposite Party No.2(two) was sanctioned this total amount on while settling the insurance claim.

14. The death of the cow happened on Dt.02/09/2011 and information was given to Opposite Party No.1(one) on Dt.12/09/2011. So when Opposite Party No.2(two) and Opposite Party No.1(one) condoned the delayed information about the death, a delay of more than one year has happened on their part, though series of communications were happening between the parties and delay of more than one years is delay though may not be very significant looking into the issues raised while settling the claim. The Opposite Party No.2(two) could have repudiated at the instance of late submission of information when terms and conditions provide for immediate information within twenty four hours of death which is mandatory on appearance it seems that Opposite Parties helped the Complainant to get the claim settled.

15. Complainant alleged that due to this delay of settlement of claim he was not able to repay the loan so the loan should be waived in total and claim waiver of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand) only loan. Here Complainant did not revealed the present status of the loan, about the repayments paid if any, outstanding amount, neither filed any documents related to this factum, rather asked for waiver of the whole financed sum which force as the Forum to conclude that nothing is repayed for this financing.

16. Complainant prayed for insurance amount of Rs.17,000/- (Rupees seventeen thousand) only. Account filed with the case record shows that, the value of the cow at the time of death is written as Rs. 17,000/- (Rupees seventeen thousand) only, but according to the insurance documents it is evident that onlyRs. 15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand) only as the sum assured amount and that is paid to the Opposite Party No.1(one) while settling the insurance claim by Opposite Party No.2(two) rightly.

17. Complainant claimed Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) only as compensation but was not able to quantify how he claims this amount from the Opposite Parties almost in all cases, the claim procedure is normally same and claimant has to follow the same to set the claim settled Complainant was not able to show exactly how he suffered any such losses as alleged.

18. Complainant alleged that he could have purchased a new cow if the claim has been settled and he sanctioned the loan for one year the benefit of a cow. But it seems that in case of cow finance when death of animal occurs the insurance amount settled for the loan is delivered to the person availing finance or credited to the loan account is not clear. Again with the sum assured being less from the value of a cow which is Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand) only it is hard to believe this contention.

19. Acceptance of claim form and settlement of claim has been done by the Opposite Parties even after violation of terms and conditions. In the part of the Complainant though he was aware of the process being already done this even prior to this complaint with the same Opposite Parties. But now crying foul against the Opposite Parties for a delay in payment of a sum assured which and not proper in the eye of Forum.

Under the circumstances and detailed discussions and analysis of facts and angles as made in above paras Forum orders:-

• O R D E R -

1. Opposite Party No.1(one) is directed to disburse the cheque issued for final claim settlement for the insurance in issue to the Complainant within seven days of this Order and Complainant will accept the same and Opposite Party No.1(one) is free to follow the procedure applicable as per their rules, terms and conditions of the financing.

2. Opposite Party No.1(one) will not charge any interest claim on the finance for the period of date of death of the cow till this order.

3. Opposite Party No.2(two) exempted from any charges in this complaint.

4. No costs, Parties will bear their own costs.

   Stands disposed.

Typed to my dictation

and corrected by me.

         I agree,                                       I agree,                                       I agree,                                                                                            (Smt. Anjali Behera )            (Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)             ( Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak)

      M e m b e r.                         M e m b e r.                                 P r e s i d e n t.