By. Sri. P. Raveendran, Member:-
Brief of the complaint:- The complainant bought a cow under Vidharbha Scheme of the Central Government by the loan amount sanctioned by the 1st opposite party. Before sanctioning the loan the complainant had complied all formalities and cow was examined by veterinary doctor as per the norms of the scheme. The 1st opposite party given the loan amount on 18.07.2009 after deducting the insurance premium amount. The proposal form of the insurance given by the complainant to the 1st opposite party on 15.07.2009 and it is informed by the 1st opposite party that the insurance coverage starts from 15.07.2009. The above said cowwas died on 24.07.2009 due to accidental fall in the shed. The matter was informed to the opposite parties. Thereafter the complainant submitted application for getting insurance amount to opposite party and opposite party rejected the claim by stating false untenable things vide letter dated 02.11.2009. The reason stated in the rejection letter that the cow was seen ill on 20.07.2011 and the insurance commenced only on 21.07.2011. The complainant had complied all the formalities for taking the insurance policy on 15.07.2011 and it was the duty of opposite party No.1 to pay the insurance premium amount to opposite party No.2. Thus the opposite parties are legally liable to pay compensation to the complainant. The acts of the opposite parties are deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence it is prayed to pass an Order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.25,000/- as insurance amount to the complainant due to death of the cow with 12% interest from the date of death and also to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and cost of this litigation.
2. The opposite parties are appeared and filed their version. In the version of opposite party No.1 he admitted that the complainant was sanctioned a cow loan of Rs.30,000/- on 18.07.2009. Accordingly Demand Draft for Rs.1,650/- was taken in favour of the New India Assurance Company Limited on 18.07.2009. Since the 18.07.2009 was Saturday on the next immediate working day that is on 20.07.2009 the 1st opposite party sent the Demand Draft to the Insurance company and the same was received by opposite party No.2. So there is no dereliction on duty on the part of 1st opposite party. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost of the opposite party No.1.
3. The opposite party No.2 admitted that the cow was insured with opposite party No.2 from 21.07.2009 to 20.07.2012. The animal was first seen ill on 20.07.2011 at 9 pm and the Veterinary Surgeon attended the cow 20.07.2009, 21.07.2009, 23.07.2009. Subsequently the cow died on 29.07.2009. This opposite party received the premium amount from the 1st opposite party on 21.07.2009 on the same day the opposite party issued the policy of Insurance. But the cow first seen ill on 20.07.2009 before commencement of risk. The policy was issued covering risk from 21.07.2009 that is after the accident. Therefore as per the basic principles of insurance and terms and conditions of insurance policy this opposite party was not in a position to settle the claim submitted by the complainant. Hence the opposite party repudiated the claim and informed to the complainant on 02.11.2009. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost of the opposite party No.2.
4. On considering the complaint and versions the following points are to be considered:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Relief and Cost.
5. Point No.1 :- To prove complainant's case he has filed his proof affidavit. In the proof affidavit he stated as stated in the complaint. He has also produced Exts.A1 to A3 documents. Ext.A1 is the Cattle Insurance proposal form issued by the Veterinary Surgeon, Edavaka. Ext.A2 is the repudiation letter dated 02.11.2009 and Ext.A3 is the Certificate issued by the Veterinary Surgeon, Veterinary Dispensary Edavaka. State Bank of India field officer Mr. Muhammed Haneefa was examined as OPW1 and Exts.B1 to B3 documents were produced and marked by the opposite party No.1, and Exts.B4 to B7 documents were marked on the side of opposite party No.2.
6. Regarding Insurance Policy and death of the cow are not in dispute. According to opposite party No.2 the policy taken at the time of fall of the cow. On verifying Exts.A1 and Exts.B1 to B3 it is clear that the cow was examined by the veterinary Surgeon and issued Ext.A1. Exts.B1 to B3 shows that opposite party No.1 deducted an amount of Rs.1,650/- from the account of the complainant and Demand Draft was taken in the name of opposite party No.2 on 18.07.2009. Ext.B6 shows that the cow is insured from 21.07.2009 to 20.07.2012. In the version of opposite party No.1 it is stated that even though the Demand Draft is taken in the name of opposite party No.2 on 18.07.2009, the Demand Draft sent to opposite party No.2 on 20.07.2009 since 19.07.2009 is Sunday. Ext.B6 shows that the insurance starts from 21.07.2009. Ext.A3 shows that the cow is died on 24.07.2009. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2 for not paying the insurance amount to the complainant. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. There is no delay in sending the Demand Draft on the part of opposite party No.1. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1.
7. Points No.2 :- The complainant is entitled to get Rs.25,000/- that is the insured
amount from opposite party No.2 with 10% interest from 27.09.2011 till the payment is made. He is also entitled to get Rs.1,000/- as cost of this litigation.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party No.2 is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with 10% interest from 27.09.2011 till the payment is made. The opposite party No.2 is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) as cost of this litigation. This Order is to be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this.
Pronounced in Open Forum on this the day of 29th February 2012.
Date of Filing:27.09.2011.
