By. Smt. Saji Mathew, Member:-
The gist of the case is as follows:- The complainant had taken a loan of Rs.60,000/- from opposite party No.1 as per Vidarbha package. There was a subsidy of Rs.30,000/-. The two cows bought by the complainant using the loan amount were insured by the bank and an amount of Rs.3,000/- was deducted from the account of the complainant as premium. The veterinary doctor examined the cow and ear tags were given with No.16295 and 6832/7010.
2. While so going on one of the cows got ill. Its mammary glands were got damaged and the cow stopped milching. The veterinary doctor certified that there is total and permanent disability. Thought the complainant has approached both the opposite parties for getting the insurance amount, they could not ever ascertain whether there is any policy or not regarding the cow.
3. The complainant has suffered financial loss by treating the cow. He sustained loss of amount Rs.1,08,000/- as the cow stopped milching. He has to spend on its feeding. So, he prays for an order directing the opposite parties to give Rs.20,000/- as insurance claim with 12% interest.
4. The 1st opposite party filed version and admitted the loan DD No. 156506 dated 25.08.2007 for Rs.1,320/- was sent to the opposite party No.2 as policy premium for insuring the cow with all necessary documents. When the cow got deceased the complainant has approached
the bank for getting the insurance coverage. Then it was found that the 2nd opposite party has not handed over the policy regarding the cow even after accepting the premium and other documents. The 2nd opposite party has not even issued a duplicate copy of the policy to the 1st opposite party. This is irresponsibility on the part of the opposite party No.2. There is no deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 prays for the dismissal of the case.
5. The 2nd opposite party filed version and stated that they have not insured the cow bearing tag No.16295. They never accepted any premium for insuring this cow. Ear tag bearing
No.16295 was never provided by the opposite party No.2. If any premium was accepted by opposite party No.1 in respect of the cow, that was not forwarded to opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 admits that the complainant had insured another cow bearing tag No.6832/70110 with opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.1 paid a premium of Rs.1,320/- by virtue of the SBI chalan No.312180 dated 24.06.2007. There is no deficiency in service or negligence on the side of the opposite party No.2. They pray for dismissal of the complaint.
6. The complainant was examined as PW1. Documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A3 on the side of the complainant. The veterinary doctor was examined as PW2. Opposite party No.1 is examined as OPW1. Documents were marked as Exts.B1 to B8. Opposite party No.2 adduced no evidence.
7. The matters to be decided are as follows:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties?.
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?.
8. Point No.1:- Ext.B1 is the DD slip. As per Ext.B2 DD No.156506 is issued on 25.08.2007 in favor of National Insurance company. Ext.B3 is the consignment note given by speed and safe couriers. But this document do not reveal anything regarding the contents of consignment. The date of DD is 25.08.2007, the date of consignment note is 26.09.2007. One month delay between the issuance of DD and sending it is not explained by opposite party No.1. Acknowledgment for the receipt of the DD by opposite party No.2 also is not produced. Thus
there is not conclusive evidence to show that the DD is promptly sent by opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.2. After sending the DD for the premium, it is the duty of the bank to ensure that the policy is issued. In this case, the opposite party No.1 has failed to do so. They enquiried about the policy only on 31.10.2009 ie only after arising the cause of claim (Exts.B5). Instead of informing the insurance company about a claim regarding a certain policy, the bank is now stating that the policy is not received by them. All this shows that even after deducting premium amount from the complainant's account and issuing DD in favor of the insurance company the bank has not taken responsibility to ensure that the DD has been received by the insurance company and policy issued in favor of the complainant. Ext.B4 is the entry on 26.09.2007 in the postage register kept by opposite party No.1. Ext.B3 the consignment note is also dated 26.09.2007. But it is found that the DD No.156506 is in respect of tag No.12468 and the name Bindhu Anil is shown against this number. So, the contention of opposite party No.1 that DD No.156506 is sent as premium for the disputed cow is not correct. Ext.B1 is seen as scored off with red ink. No explanation is given for this. It affirms the fact that after deducting the amount from the complainant as per Ext.B1, the DD was issued in respect of some other person's cow. So there is clear deficiency in service on the side of opposite party No.1. Hence point No.1 is found accordingly.
9. Point No.2:- Ext.A3 shows that the cow regarding which the premium is deducted from the account of the complainant is certified to have total and permanent disability. The opposite party No.1 failed to ensure insurance policy regarding the cow. Hence, they are liable to compensate the complainant by an amount equal to the intended policy amount.
Hence, the 1st opposite party is directed to pay the complainant a compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) and cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only), ( total Rs.20,500/-) within 30 days of the receipt of this order. The opposite party has to pay an interest on the ordered amount at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of this order till payment.
Pronounced in Open Forum on this the day of 30th November 2011.
Date of Filing:08.07.2010.
