th June 2009 C.C. No. 19 of 2009 C.C. No. 19 of 2009

4

i. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

ii. To what relief?

6. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A5 were marked and on behalf of

the respondents Ex. B1 was marked. Oral arguments were heard from both sides.

7. Point No. 1 Ex. A1 is the Xerox copy of post mortem certificate issued

by Veterinary Assistant, Vallur. Ex. A2 is the Xerox copy of letter of Veterinary doctor

addressed to R1. Ex. A3 is the Xerox copy of intimated letter of inadmissibility of

claim from R2 to R1, dt. 6-11-2006. Ex. A4 is the original S.B. Account passbook of

the complainant in the bank of R1. Ex. A5 is the colour photograph of the died

cattle. Ex. B1 is the Xerox copy of cattle insurance policy.

8. As could be seen from the documentary evidence on record it is a fact

that the complainant purchased a mulch buffalo by availing loan from R1. The life of

the animal was insured with R2. The animal was allotted tag No. 4304 and the

policy was in force at the time of death of the buffalo that took place on 31-10-2006.

There is no reason to disagree with the contention of the learned counsel for the

respondent that the complainant is not insured under the policy issued by R2 and

that it is R1, who is insured under the policy in which various Milch buffaloes

belonging to various beneficiaries were insured among which the complainant is one

of the beneficiary. A beneficiary under this policy cannot file a complaint and that if

any grievance arise, it is only the insured, who has to file a complaint as such filing a

complaint by the beneficiary, i.e complainant is not maintainable and liable to be

dismissed. There is no dispute with regards to the death of the animal. At the time

of issuance of policy, tag bearing No. 4304 was impressed to the buffalo of the

complainant on its ear which is also mentioned in the policy. As per the terms and

conditions mentioned in Ex. B1 the tag should be surrendered at the time of claim,

otherwise it will be treated as no claim. In the event of death of animal covered under

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 19 / 2009

Thummaluru Narsimha Reddy, S/o Subba Reddy,

aged 42 years, Hindu, Agriculturist,

R/o Cheruvukindapalli Village, Vallur Mandal,

Kadapa Distict. ….. Complainant.

Vs.

1) State Bank of India, Rep. by its Branch Manager,

Kamalapuram Branch and Post, Kadapa District.

2) United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its

Branch Manager, B.S. complex, Gandhi Road,

Proddatur Post and Kadapa District. ….. Respondents.

This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 01-6-2009 in the

presence of Sri M. Rama Krishna, Advocate for complainant and Sri D.V.S. Prasad,

Advocate for R2 and R1 called absent and set exparte upon perusing the material

papers on record, the Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

(Per Sri S. Abdul Khader Basha, Member),

1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The complainant is an

agriculturist and resident of Cheruvukindapalli village of Vallur Mandal. The

complainant purchased one Milch buffalo by availing a loan from R1, vide loan

account No. 01572067467. The R1 made life of the cattle insured with R2 with a tag

No. 4304 and allotted the policy to the cattle bearing No. 05090147050100000506.

As per terms, the R1 has paid premium amount to R2 and the same has debited to

the account of the complainant. Then the complainant has to see to pay the

installments regularly to R1. The Buffalo in question died on 31-10-2006 at about

5.30 p.m. The Assistant Surgeon of Veterinary Dispensary, Vallur conducted the

post-mortem over the cattle and issued a certificate and in that certificate it was

concluded that the cattle died due to Tympanits. The certificate was issued on

2

01-11-2006. The owner of the cattle, the complainant has approached both the

respondents and informed about the death of the insured cattle. On the basis of it,

the R1 also informed the R2 that issue of claim forms which are required for claims

to the complainant. The Veterinary surgeon informed to R2 on 6-11-2006, so there is

communication to R2 from the complainant, Veterinary surgeon and R1 after

receiving the necessary documents showing the death of the cattle. The R2

repudiated the claim on flimsy grounds that not issuing immediate notice by the

complainant within 24 hours from the date of death of the cattle. The complainant,

after the death of the cattle approached both the respondents and informed the death

of the cattle. The R2 informed him orally insisting him for post mortem report.

Hence, the complainant was held up with the above job. In those circumstances he

could not supply the post mortem certificate within time. But he has passed the

information to both the respondents immediately next day of the death of the cattle.

But there is no dispute with regard to the death of the cattle. The R2 repudiated the

genuine claim of the complainant on flimsy grounds to evade the payment of

insurance amount. The services of both respondents are deficient in nature. Hence

the complainant filed this complaint as the respondents are doing their business and

its branches within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum. This Hon’ble Forum has

territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The complainant requested this

forum to allow the complaint and pass orders in his favour directing the respondents

to pay Rs. 15,000/- along with interest @ 25% p.a. from the date of death of the

animal till date of realization, to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony

and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs.

3. R1 was called absent and set exparte on 6-5-2009.

4. R2 filed a counter denying all the allegations and stated that the present

complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable since the complainant is not

the insured under the policy issued by R2 and that it is the R1, who is the insured

DISTRICT FORUM :: KADAPA

PRESENT SRI P.V. NAGESWARA RAO, M.A., LL.M., PRESIDENT

SRI S. ABDUL KHADER BASHA, B.Sc., MEMBER

Thursday, 4

3

under the policy in which various Milch buffaloes were insured belonging to various

beneficiaries among which the complainant is one of the beneficiaries. A beneficiary

under the policy cannot file a complaint and that if any grievance arise, it is only the

insured who has to file a complaint, as such filing of a complaint by the beneficiary,

the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The insured product

under the said policy is various Milch Buffaloes belonging to various beneficiaries

and to have the identify of the animal, issued under the policy, a tag with serial No.

will be impressed on the ear of the animal and in the said process the complainant’s

buffalo was allotted with a tag bearing No. 4304, which is also mentioned in the said

insurance policy. As per conditions under the said policy that “Tag should be

surrendered at the time of claim, otherwise it will be treated as no claim. In the

event of death of animal/s covered under the policy, claim shall not be entertained

unless the ear tag is surrendered to the company. In the event of loss of ear tag, it is

the responsibility of the insured to give immediate notice to the company and get the

animal retagged” As per said conditions, the complainant has not surrendered the

ear tag No. 4304 to R2 which is mandatory in nature. It is the duty of the insured to

inform R2 about the death of the insured animal within 24 hours of its death. In the

instant case the death intimation was not within 24 hours as such on this aspect the

R2 has repudiated the claim of the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on

the part of R2 in not settling the claim of the complainant. There is no deficiency of

service on the part of R2 in not settling the claim of the complainant. R2 has applied

its mind before issuing the repudiation letter. This Hon’ble Forum has no

jurisdiction to try this complaint as there is no deficiency of service on the part of R2

and the R2 requested to dismiss the complaint against him with costs in the interest

of justice.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for

determination.