DATE OF DISPOSAL: 26.03.2019
Mr. Karuna Kar Nayak, President:
The complainant Simanchal Sahani has filed this consumer dispute under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the Opposite Parties (in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he availed loan from O.P.No.1 for purchase of Jersey cow for personal livelihood and the loan was sanctioned as per the project prepared by the Veterinary Assistant Surgery Jagannathprasad on dated 18.11.2008. As per the condition of the Project the cows were purchased by the complainant in the batches of 5 (each) with an interval of six months under the Loan Account No. ATI. OT No. 3/9. As per provision of the Bank, the O.P.No.1 insured the life of the cows and deducted the Insurance Premiums from the account of the complainant bearing Saving Bank Account No.28 and issued Ear Tag for each of the cows with a mark of Tag No. 44994, 449933,449943, 449938, 449927 and 449940. The complainant approached the O.P.No.1for renewal of the insurance was advised to the Veterinary Assistant surgeon, Jagannathprasad after verification issued the Health Certificate, which was produced in time on 14.11.2010. The life of the cows were insured and the insurance amount deducted from the complainant’s Saving Bank Account No. 28. At the time of Health Certificate by the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Jagannath Prasad, the cost of the cows were Rs.1,10,000/-. On 25.03.2011 the Branch Manager of the O.P.No.1 Bank visited the premises of the Farm and could see that four numbers of cows out of five were ill and the said Branch Manager took four numbers of Ear Tags No. 449943, 449927, 449940, 449938 and accordingly issued receipt to the complainant. On 25.03.2011 three numbers of cows were dead bearing Ear Tag No. 449942, 449927, 449938 and on dated 14.09.2011 another cow whose ear tag No. 449940 was dead. The complainant immediately informed the O.P.No.1 and the Branch Manager, arrived to the spot, took the photo, and assured the arrangements insurance claim from the O.P.No.3 i.e. National Insurance Company Limited. Thereafter, the complainant approached the O.P.No.1 for settlement of the insurance claim early several times, but there was no positive response. Instead of the above, the O.P.No.1 issued his office letter dated 19.01.2012 directing for submission of the same to the National Insurance Co. Ltd for settlement of the claim. Being astonished on the aforesaid letter dated 19.01.2012 of the O.P.No.1, the complainant enquired personally and was intimated that only the said Ear tag cow’s life was insured. The ear tags were insured in favour of each cow as stated above and accordingly insurance premium were deducted from the Saving Bank Account of the complainant by the O.P.No.1. For the aforesaid deficiencies of service on the part of the O.P. No.1, the complainant suffered from harassment and mental agony. By the time, the complainant was temporarily residing at Saranakula, District: Nayagarh and inadvertently filed complaint before the Dist. Forum, Nayagarh which was registered as CC No.30 of 2012. The said Forum after hearing the matter disposed the complainant on dated 06.09.2013 as hereunder:
“From the complaint as well as from the evidence of the complaint it clearly reveals that the transaction has taken place in the District Ganjam where the O.P.No.1,2 & 3 resides and carried on their business. Therefore this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try this case when O.P.No.1,2 and 3 belong to Ganjam District”.
Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps for payment of Rs.1,10,000/- only towards the insurance claim of ear tag cows, compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards harassment and mental agony and Rs.4,000/- towards litigation cost in the best interest of justice.
3. Notices were issued against the Opposite Parties but the O.P.No.1 and 2 neither preferred to appear nor filed any written version as such the O.P.No.1 and 2 set exparte on 24.05.2016 respectively.
4. Upon notice the O.P.No.3 filed version through his advocate. It is stated that the averments of complaint petition are all not true, not admitted by this O.P. The statements/averments/allegations made in the claim application and not specifically traversed herein in this version are deemed to have been denied by this O.P. There is absolutely no allegations as against this O.P. and as such the present case as against this O.P. is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed primarily on the ground of mis-joinder of necessary party, apart from other valid land reasonable grounds to be detailed herein after. It has been alleged that the complainant has purchased live stocks (cow) availing loan from the O.P.No.1 & 2 and that insured the same with this O.P. through the O.P.No.1 & 2 are all baseless in the absence of the policy details such as the number, issuing office and the period of such insurance etc. and as such the complainant is put to strict proof of such allegations by placing authentic documentary evidence to this effect. However, without prejudice to the contentions raised herein before and without admitting any liability, it is humbly submitted that allegations as is made under Paras 1 to 8 are neither to the active knowledge of the O.P. nor this O.P. has any counter to such allegations as the contents/averments/allegations there-under are facts, if at all, to the exclusive knowledge of the complainant and the rest of the O.Ps herein. This O.P. specifically denies the allegations that made under Paras 3,6,7 and elsewhere of the claim application to the effect that the complainant has availed loan and purchased five numbers of cows tagged numbers 44994, 449933, 449943, 449938, 449927 and 449940 and have insured the same with this O.P. through the O.P.No.1. In the present claim is concerned, it is submitted that on 1.11.2011 this O.P. was in receipt of the letter dated 21.10.2011 of the O.P.No.1 intimating the death of an insured animal (Milch cow) bearing policy No. 9400005103/2010 and Tag No. 449940 on 14.09.2011 and with a request to this O.P. for supply of claim form to facilitate the insured to lodges his claim and this O.P. after verifying the office record and confirming that the subject cow is insured with it vide policy No.153201/47/10/9400005103 for the period from 29.3.2011 to 28.3.2012, immediately proceeded and discharged the part of its duty by sending the required claim form to the O.P.No.1 on the same day i.e. on 01.11.2011 vide this O.P’s letter No. 836 and as such the question of any deficiency of service on the part of this O.P. does not arise at all. Failings to receive any response either from the O.P.No.1 and the complainant this O.P. yet again sent a reminder to the O.P.No.1 vide letter No.1192 dated 9.1.2012 for supply of necessary documents such as the (a) claim form (b) P.M. Report and (c) Ear Tag derived from the dead animal (allegedly insured) for settlement of the claim with clear and express terms that unless the requisites are submitted with this O.P. within 15 days from the date of receipt of letter. This O.P. shall presume the insured is no more interested for the claim and that as such the claim would be treated as ‘NO CLAIM’. On 24.1.2012 though this O.P. received a reply letter from the O.P.No.1 vide its letter RGB/28/19/07/2012 dated 19.01.2012 alongwith (1) claim form and (ii) Post Mortem report, the required ear tag was not submitted and instead a remark was made to the effect that “The Borrower has not submitted yet the ear tag derived from the deceased animal. As soon as he will submit the same will be transmitted to you”. Since thereafter, this O.P. being esteem and established insurance Company of repute, with ought most importance of its valued customers, was in regular touch with the O.P.No.1 time and again until 5.3.2012, when it received another letter from the O.P.No.1 vide L.No. RGB/19/13/2012 dated 18.02.2012 wherein instead of supplying the ear tag in question necessary for process of the claim, for reason bests known to the O.P.No.1. It submitted photo copy of the alleged deceased animal reported to have been duly authenticated by the VAS & the complainant requesting this O.P. to process and settle the claim of the complainant as the photo referred above reportedly depicts the tagging of the insured animal and with a further requests to settle the claim “basing on the available proof of death of insured animal”. After awaiting for yet another considerable period of time, this O.P. once again, vide its letter Ref: 163201/skp/claim/1485 dated 15.3.2012 appraised the O.P. No.1 that the Ear Tag being highly essential and required for process and settlement of claim, a fact/necessity which is very much to the knowledge O.P.No.1 as well as the same need to be complied within 7 days hence and that otherwise the claim would stand treated as “No claim”. Failing to get any response from the O.P.No.1 and/or the complainant through the later, finally in absence of material documents (ear tag) necessary for and a condition precedent of the policy concerned and also expressly endorsed on face the policy for process of the claim vis-à-vis entitlement of the insured for any benefit arising out of the subject policy, this O.P. was constrained to close the file as “NO CLAIM” and intimated such decision to the O.P.No.1 vide this O.Ps letter Ref: No. 1552 dated 27.03.2012 by Regd. Post with AD and thereby absolving this O.P. from any further liabilities, arising out of the subject claim. Further allegations made under Para 9 to 10 with regard to lack of knowledge of the complainant as to how many cows were insured, what amount of premium being deducted from the complainant’s account by the O.P.No.1 towards insurance and what number of cows the alleged harassment/mental agony suffered by the complainant etc. are neither to the knowledge of this O.P. nor this O.P. is concerned about such allegations and as such this O.P. can not held answerable and/or accountable to the complainant nor any liability can be fixed on this O.P. for the wrong by the O.P.No.1 and/or the complainant or both. However, without prejudice to the contentions raised herein before and without admitting any liability, it is submitted that the claim for Rs.1,10,000/- together with compensation of Rs.20,000/- and cost of Rs.4000/- as is prayed for by the complainant, is frivolous, imaginary and baseless. In view of the submissions made herein before and in view of the fact that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. the present case as framed against this O.P.No.3 is bad in law and liable to be dismissed.
5. On the date of hearing we heard argument from the advocate for complainant as advocate for O.P.No.3 is absent on several dates. We have gone through the case record and also perused the written version, written argument and documents available on the case record. It reveals that the complainant had availed loan from O.P.No.1’s Bank and purchased 5 (five) numbers of jersey cows for earning his livelihood. The complainant fails to file any documentary evidence such as policy Bond to show the details of the insurance of his cows. Though the complainant claims that the insurance premium amount has been deducted from his S.B. Account No. 28 but fails to file copy of Bank statement in support of his claim. Further, it reveals from the complaint petition of the complainant that on 25.03.2011 four numbers of cows out of five were ill and the said Branch Manager (O.P.No.1) took four numbers of ear tags No.44943, 449927, 449940, 449938 and issued the receipt thereof. As per the complaint three cows bearing Tag No. 449942, 449927 and 449938 died on the same day i.e. on 25.03.2011 and another cow bearing ear tag No. 449940 was dead on 14.09.2011. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant claims that his cows Ear Tag numbers have been received by the O.P.No.1 on 25.03.2011, but the receipt which has been filed by the complainant reveals that the O.P.No.1 has received the ear tags on 24.03.2011, which undoubtedly creates doubt. It also reveals from the letter of O.P.No.1 dated 19.01.2012 to the complainant for submission of Ear Tag number 449940 alongwith claim form before the National Insurance Company Ltd. for settlement of the claim at the earliest and O.P.No.1 has also intimated to the complainant that provision of “No Tag No Claims” will be invoked by the Insurance Company. After getting the letter from O.P.No.1, the complainant has not sent the necessary relevant documents to the O.P.No.3 for settlement of his claim.
6. On foregoing discussion, it is clear evident that the O.Ps are not negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, in our considered view there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
7. In the result, the complainant’s case is dismissed against the O.Ps without cost.
The order is pronounced on this day of 26th March 2019 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of www.confonet.nic.in for posting in internet and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.
