BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAMANAGARA

ORDER

BY SRI H.CHANNEGOWDA, HON’BLE PRESIDENT

1. The Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the Opposite parties praying for to direct the Opposite party No.2 to deposit or to pay the insurance amount and to direct the Opposite party pay damages/compensation for the loss incurred by the Complainant along with costs of the complaint.  
2. In a nutshell the case of the Complainant are as under:-

The Complainant is an account holder with the Opposite party No.1 bearing account No.0498101005064. The Complainant approached the Opposite party No.1 to avail a loan of Rs.50,000/- to purchase a female black and white HFX cattle on 20.11.2018.

3. Further it is alleged that the said female black and white HFX cattle was insured with the Opposite party No.2 bearing ear ring No.08458 and the said insurance was valid for a period of three years.
4. Further it is alleged that on 23.11.2020 the cattle bearing tag No.08458 owned by the Complainant was fell-ill and the same was treated by Dr.Shruthi – Veterinary Surgeon. The said Surgeon treated the said cow for a period of three days, but ultimately the said cow was died on 25.11.2020 and post mortem was conducted, after that death certificate was issued on the same day.
5. Further it is alleged that after the death of female black and white HFX cattle bearing tag No.08458 the Complainant approached the Opposite parties along with records/documents to claim the insurance. But, both the Opposite parties not responded, thereafter on 21.01.2021 he issued written claim to the Opposite party No.1 along with all document for claim of the amount, but the Opposite party No.1 has not replied nor responded. Thereafter the said claim was reported by mail.
6. Further it is alleged that on 06.03.2021 the Complainant issued a legal notice through his counsel to claim the insurance. The said notice sent through registered post was duly served on both the parties. Even after service of notice the Opposite parties failed to deposit or pay the claim amount. The Complainant is an agriculturist and that he and his family members were totally depending on milking from cows and thereby he has rendered deficiency in service and the Opposite parties are liable to pay the insurance amount.

Mainly among these grounds it is prayed to allow the complaint as prayed for.  

7. After the service of notice, both the Opposite parties entered appearance through their counsel and filed their written version separately.
8. In the written version the Opposite party No.1 has admitted that the Complainant was operating an account and availed loan from the Bank. The Opposite party No.2 is the Insurance Company where the Complainant has insured his HFX cattle. It is also admitted that the Complainant approached the Opposite party No.1 to avail loan for Rs.50,000/- to purchase a female black and white HFX cattle on 20.11.2018.
9. It is also admitted that the said female black and white HFX cattle was insured with Opposite party No.2 bearing ear ring No.08458. Except admitting the above facts, the Opposite party No.1 has denied the rest of the averments of the complaint as false and untenable.
10. In the written version the Opposite party No.1 has stated that admittedly the diseased cow was insured with Opposite party No.1 and the policy is subject to many conditions, the nature of disease as soon as it commences or affects the cow should be intimated to the company and the ear tag should be immediately submitted to the company. The Complainant has not complied with the terms of the policy.
11. Further it is contended that the Complainant has not maintained sufficient amount in his account and also not made payment of loan installment in regular course of business. In some occasions, he has not maintained sufficient amount in his account. Hence his account shows nil balance.
12. Further it is stated that the policy was issued for the period from 13.03.2019 to 12.03.2020 midnight. It was the duty and responsibility of the Complainant to get the policy renewed so long as the loan is outstanding and so long as the cow is alive and milching. Thus the question of any deficiency in service by the Opposite party No.1 does not arise.
13. Further it is contended that the Opposite party No.1 has nothing to do with the insurance and the claim. It is between Complainant and Opposite party No.2. Therefore the Opposite party No.1 is not at all liable and is not a necessary or proper party to the complaint.

Mainly among these grounds it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

14. In the written version the Opposite party No.2 has mainly contended that it has not issued any policy to the Opposite party No.1 with respect to Complainant. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed for mis-joinder of party. There has been no negligence or deficiency of service whatsoever on the part of Opposite party No.2 and hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
15. In the written version the Opposite party No.2 has admitted that it has issued cattle insurance policy in favour of Opposite party No.1 bearing policy No.67010447180400000480 and it is valid from 13.03.2019 to 12.03.2020 and the liability of Opposite party No.2 is limited to the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance.
16. Further it is contended that this policy was not renewed for further period by the Opposite party No.1 and that the said cow was not insured with the Opposite party No.2 as the policy was not renewed by the Opposite party No.1 as on 25.11.2020 (on the date of death of cow). There is no cause of action as on the date of incident between Opposite party No.1 & 2. The Opposite party No.2 has neither committed any deficiency of service nor made any unfair trade practice while dealing with the Complainant.

Mainly among these grounds it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

17. At the time of evidence, the Complainant has filed his affidavit of evidence and got marked 9 documents as Ex.C.1 to C.9 and closed his side evidence. On the other hand, the Branch Manager of Opposite party No.1 by name Sri.Cholan J. S/o A.Janakiraman has filed his affidavit of evidence and got marked one document as Ex.R.1(1) and closed its side evidence. On behalf of Opposite party No.2 its Assistant Manager by name Ramesh Kumar Raja has filed the affidavit of evidence and got marked 3 documents as Ex.R.1(2) to R.3(2) and closed their side evidence. Then the case posted for arguments.
18. The learned counsel for the Complainant and Opposite party No.1 & 2 have filed their written arguments. Heard the oral arguments.
19. Now the points that would arises for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the Complainant prove that there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite parties?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought in the complaint?
3. What order?

20. Our findings on the above points are as under.

Point No.1  :         In the Affirmative as against

                           Opposite party No.1

Point No.2  :         Partly in the Affirmative

Point No.3  :         As per final order

                           for the following;

REASONS

21. POINT NO.1:- On perusal of the averments of the complaint and the written version filed by Opposite parties it is seen that the following facts are not much in disputes between the parties.

The Complainant was an account holder with the Opposite party No.1 bearing account No.0498101005064 and that he approached the Opposite party No.1 to avail loan of Rs.50,000/- to purchase a female black and white HFX cattle on 20.11.2018. After purchase of the said female black and white HFX cattle the same was insured by the Opposite party No.1 with the Opposite party No.2 and the said policy was valid from 13.03.2019 to 12.03.2020 midnight. The said cattle bearing ear tag No.08458 owned by the Complainant was fell-ill and the same was treated by Dr.Shruthi – Veterinary Surgeon, but ultimately the said cow was died on 25.11.2020 and after conducting post mortem the said Doctor has issued death certificate to the Complainant.

22. As per the averments of the complaint, the main case of the Complainant is that after the death of the said cow he approached the Opposite parties along with documents to claim the insurance, but both of them have not responded. Thereafter he sent written claim dated 21.01.2021 to the Opposite party No.1 with all required documents for claim of the insurance amount, but the Opposite party No.1 has not replied or responded. Even after issuance of legal notice dated 06.03.2021 to the Opposite parties, both of them have failed to settle the insurance claim even after service of notice to them. According to the Complainant, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties as they failed to settle the insurance claim after the death of the said cow.
23. In the written version the main case of the Opposite party No.1 is that the deceased cow was insured with it (Opposite party No.1) and the policy was subject to many conditions and that the Complainant has failed to intimate the nature of disease when it commences to the cow and he has not submitted ear tag immediately to the Opposite party No.1 and thereby the Complainant has not complied with the terms of the policy. Further it is contended that it was the duty and responsibility of the Complainant to get the policy renewed so long as loan is outstanding and so long as cow is alive and milching. Thus the question of deficiency in service by the Opposite party No.1 does not arise.
24. Whereas in the written version the main case of the Opposite party No.2 is that earlier cattle insurance policy was issued by it in favour of Canara Bank (Opposite party No.1) and the said policy was valid from 13.03.2019 to 12.03.2020 subject to the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. But the said policy was not renewed for further period by the Opposite party No.1 and that as on the date of death of the said cow (25.11.2020) the policy was not renewed by the Opposite party No.1. Thereby there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite party No.2.
25. In view of the above rival contention of the parties, now this Commission has to find out among the Opposite parties who is at fault or committed deficiency in service in payment of insurance premium regarding the death of the said cow belonging to the Complainant.
26. The contents of Ex.C.3 death certificate and Ex.C.4 another certificate dated 25.11.2020 issued by Dr.Shruthi – Veterinary Surgeon shows that the said cow bearing tag No.08458 (belong to Complainant) was treated by the said doctor from 23.11.2020 to 25.11.2020 but unfortunately the said cow was died on 25.11.2020 and after conducting post mortem she issued Ex.C.3 death certificate to the Complainant. Ex.R.1(1) and Ex.R.3(2) are one and the same documents i.e., cattle insurance policy. As per the contents of the said documents the said cow belonging to the Complainant was insured by Canara Bank – Opposite party No.1 with the Opposite party No.2 after collecting premium from the Complainant and that the said policy was valid from 13.03.2019 to 12.03.2020. As per this document the said cow was insured for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and the name of the owner of the said cow is shown as H.K.Umesh (Complainant) the name of the insured is shown as Canara Bank, Sugganahalli Branch (present Opposite party No.1).
27. The contents of Ex.C.3, C.5, Ex.R.1(1) and Ex.R.3(2) collectively shows that as on the date of death of the said cow (25.11.2020) the cattle insurance policy was not renewed and thereby the said policy was not in force as on the death of the said cow belonging to the Complainant. As rightly contended by the Opposite party No.2 as on the death of the said cow (25.11.2020) the said cattle insurance policy was not renewed and thereby the said policy was not in force as on the death of the said cow. When that is the true state of affairs, it can be stated that there is no liability on the part of Opposite party No.2 to pay or deposit the sum assured in the policy to the Complainant, as the said policy was not at all renewed and the policy was not in force as on the death of the said cow.
28. Now the Commission has to find out whether the Opposite party No.1 has committed fault or committed deficiency in service for not keep up the cattle insurance policy valid as on the date of death of the said cow or not.

In the written version the Opposite party No.1 has admitted that the deceased cow was insured with Opposite party No.1 and the policy was subject to many conditions. As per the contents of Ex.R.1(1) and Ex.R.3(2) cattle insurance policy the insured name was shown as Canara Bank, Sugganahalli Branch (present Opposite party No.1). This clearly shows that it was the duty and responsibility of the Canara Bank – Opposite party No.1 to pay the required premium amount for renewal of the said policy from 13.03.2020 upto one year with respect to the said cow belonging to the Complainant. The contents of the copy of the statement of account produced by the Complainant at the time of arguments shows that relating to his account maintained at Opposite party No.1 Branch as on 18.02.2020 he had an amount of Rs.2,392.87 and as on 04.03.2020 he had an amount of Rs.2,843.77 as balance in the account maintained at Opposite party No.1 Branch. The contents of Ex.R.1(1) Cattle Insurance policy shows that the Opposite party No.1 has totally collected a sum of Rs.48,000/- as premium from the owner of milching cows including the present Complainant and the said policy shows that 24 owners of the milching cow have insured their cows with the Opposite party No.2. This shows that the Insured – Opposite party No.1 has collected/deducted a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards premium amount for the cattle insurance policy relating to the Complainant. As already stated, before the expiry of Ex.R.1(1) policy (12.03.2020), as per the contents of statement of account the Complainant had sufficient balance amount of Rs.2,392/- and Rs.2,843/- as on 18.02.2020 and 04.03.2020 i.e., prior to the expiry of policy period – 12.03.2020. In such circumstances, there is no hurdle caused to the Opposite party No.1 to deduct the premium amount of Rs.2,000/- from the account of the Complainant in order to further renew the said cattle insurance policy from 13.03.2020 to 12.03.2021. But the Opposite party No.1 has failed to renew the said policy for further period from 13.03.2020 till for a period of one year. As the Opposite party No.1 was shown as insured in the said cattle insurance policy (Ex.R.1(1)), it was the duty and responsibility of Opposite party No.1 Bank to deduct the required premium amount of Rs.2,000/- from the account of the Complainant and to get the insurance policy renewed from 13.03.2020 for a period of one year. This shows that there is a negligence on the part of Opposite party No.1 Bank for not renewing the insurance policy of the said cow. As the Complainant was the owner of the said cow he too had responsibility to intimate the Opposite party No.1 to deduct the required premium amount from his account for renewal of the said policy and he has to bring to the notice of the Opposite party No.1 before the expiry of the said policy in order to get the renewal of the said policy within time. Therefore, the above circumstances shows that there is a negligence on the part of both the Complainant as well as the Opposite party No.1 for non renewal of the said insurance policy after 12.03.2020. This shows that there is equal negligence (50:50) on the part of Complainant and Opposite party No.1 for non renewal of the said cattle insurance policy. In such circumstances, this Commission has to direct the Opposite party No.1 Bank to pay or deposit 50% of the sum insured (Rs.50,000/-) i.e., Rs.25,000/- to the Complainant due to the deficiency in service on its part for non renewal of the said policy in time.

Hence in view of all these reasons we answer the above point accordingly  

29. POINT NO.2:- In Point No.1 this Commission has recorded a finding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite party No.2 and thereby there is no liability to pay or deposit the sum insured to the Complainant. In Point No.1 this Commission has already recorded a finding that there is equal negligence on the part of Complainant and Opposite party No.1 for non renewal of the said policy in time and thereby the Opposite party No.1 is liable to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- out of the sum insured amount of Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant. In the circumstances the Opposite party No.1 is liable to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- out of sum insured amount of Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant. As there was negligence on the part of both Complainant and Opposite party No.1 for non renewal of cattle insurance policy, in such circumstances the question of imposing compensation and litigation costs on the Opposite party No.1 does not arise. Therefore, in view of the above reasons it is stated that the question of awarding compensation and litigation costs to the Complainant does not arise. Hence, we answer the above point accordingly
30. POINT NO.3:- In view of our reasons as stated in Point No.1 & 2 and the conclusion arrived at, we proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

The complaint filed by the Complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is partly allowed as under:- 

The Opposite party No.1 is directed to pay or deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- i.e., 50% of the sum assured insurance amount of Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant within 45 days from the date of this order. Otherwise the Opposite party No.1 shall pay interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the said amount till realization of entire amount.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.   

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Commission on 28^th March 2023)

ANNEXURS

Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Sri Umesh H.K.               –       Complainant

Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

Sri Cholan J.                   -        Opposite party No.1

Sri Ramesh Kumar Raja            -        Opposite party No.2

*ctj*