Haryana

Jind

152/2014

Smt. Raj Kumari - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Bank Of Commerce - Opp.Party(s)

SH. Ram Pal Singh

30 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 
                                           Complaint No. 152 of 2014
   Date of Institution: 17.11.2014
   Date of final order: 30.5.2016

Smt. Raj Kumari w/o Ramesh s/o Ram Rattan r/o village Muwana, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind Secretary of M/s Jyoti self help group Muwana, Tehsil Safidon, District, Jind.

                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
The Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Muwana, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind through its Manager.
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Jind, LIC building, HUDA shopping centre, Jind through its Branch Manager, Jind.
M/s Jyoti Self Help Group, village Muwana, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind through its President Smt. Bala w/o Mahabir s/o Dhara r/o village Muwana, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind. 

                                                          …..Opposite parties.
                          Complaint under section 12 of
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before:  Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
    Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.    

Present:  Sh. Ram Pal Singh Adv. for complainant.
              Sh. S.N. Singh Adv. for opposite party No.1.
          Sh. Satish Bhardwaj  Adv. for opposite party No.2. 
          Sh. Shamsher Jaglan Adv. for opposite party No.3.
                   
ORDER:

             The brief facts in the complaint are that according to the Govt. Policy/Scheme to provide ‘A Self Help Group Scheme’ to BPL 
            Smt. Raj Kumari Vs. OBC etc.
                    …2…
families member to help and improve their financial condition is started and implemented in the state. The complainant applied for  loan of the above said scheme for purchasing the buffalo. The complainant along with other members of opposite party No.3 completed all the formalities of bank and opened bank account No.03337515000849 in the name of opposite party No.3 and received the sanctioned amount Rs.45000/- each member. The opposite party No.3 got insured the whole buffaloes of all the ten members of opposite party No.3 including the buffalo of complainant vide joint Insurance Policy No.261402/47/2013/610 for the period from 25.12.2012 to mid night of 24.12.2015 i.e. three years through opposite party No.2. The insurance premium paid to the opposite party No.2 by the opposite party No.1 and the same has been deducted from the account of the complainant. It is alleged that on 25.7.2014 when the buffalo of the complainant bearing tag No. OIC-A-3764 was taken for watering and bathing in the village pond of Muwana and when she was bathing the buffalo in the pond the above said tag  has been fell down in the water of the pond and mis-placed from the ear of the buffalo. Thereafter the complainant informed the opposite party No.1 on 25.7.2014regarding missing of tag No.OIC-A-3764 of the buffalo and requested for re-tagged her buffalo through process of the bank. The opposite party No.1 marked the application to Veterinary Surgeon Muwana on 28.7.2014 with the remarks ‘kindly arrange to Punch the tag on buffalo’ and also delivered a fresh tag No. OIC-30857 to the 

            Smt. Raj Kumari Vs. OBC etc.
                    …3…
complainant. Thereafter the complainant requested the veterinary surgeon Muwana to insert the fresh tag No.OIC-30857 of her buffalo. 
The Veterinary Surgeon Muwana inserted the fresh tag on the ear of buffalo of complainant. Unfortunately due to serious illness the buffalo of complainant died on 14.8.2014. The complainant informed the opposite parties immediately regarding death of her buffalo and submitted all the necessary documents.  The post-mortem of the dead buffalo was conducted by Veterinary Surgeon Muwana on 14.8.2014 and the veterinary surgeon assessed the value of buffalo amounting to Rs.45,000/- and same also mentioned in the PMR.The claim has not been paid by the opposite parties. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to pay  the insured claim amount of Rs.45,000/-  as well as to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant. 
2.    Upon notice, the opposite parties have appeared and filed the  separate written statement. Opposite party No.1 stating in the preliminary objections i.e. the complainant has no  locus-standi to file the present complaint; the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts and the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious.  On merits, it is contended that   the answering opposite party never issued any tag to the complainant nor it  is the duty for issuing the same. The account of the complainant and other members of opposite party No.3 are defaulted account and they have not deposited the installments 
            Smt. Raj Kumari Vs. OBC etc.
                    …4…
regularly. The complainant has not deposited even a single installment towards her loan account. As per letter dated 3.9.2014 the opposite 
party No.2 requested the complainant to submit another policy No. if she is having cover tag No. OIC-30857 and complainant was given 15 days time to file representation but the complainant did not approach the opposite party No.2 within 15 days. It is alleged that the complainant has moved an application to the Manager on 5.7.2014 regarding missing of the tag and the opposite party No.1 bank and marked the same V.S. Muwana with the remarks ‘kindly arrange to punch the tag on buffalo’ but the answering opposite party has not issued any tag to the complainant nor it was authorized to issue any alleged tag rather complainant was verbally informed that he should approach the opposite party No.2 for providing fresh tag as it is the primary duty of opposite party No.2 to issue fresh tag and after taking new tag from opposite party No.2, if so advised by opposite party No.2 may get the same insured  in the ear of her buffalo. In case the answering opposite party ought to have issued any fresh tag then the number of tag ought to have been mentioned in the forwarding note. It seems that the veterinary surgeon in language with the complainant has inserted the alleged tag No. OIC-30857 from his own pocket which he might have taken out while carrying out post mortem of any other buffalo.  The opposite party No.2 has not issued any such alleged tag. As such the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated by the competent authority. All the other allegations have been denied by the  answering opposite party. Therefore, there is no deficiency in 
            Smt. Raj Kumari Vs. OBC etc.
                    …5…
service on the part of the answering  opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with costs is prayed for. 
3.    Opposite party No.2 has contended that  the matter of her claim was got investigated by the answering opposite party through an independent and approved investigator Sh. Gita Ram Parmar Adv.  who conducted the spot survey and submitted his report dated 1.9.2014 and he found that as per Health Certificate and Insurance Policy, the tag No. OIC-3764 was inserted in the ear of insured buffalo but in the ear of died buffalo an another tag No. OIC-30857 was inserted. The complainant has failed to establish the identification of died buffalo to be insured one as per tag number given in the insurance policy. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering  opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with costs is prayed for. 
4.    Opposite party No.3 has contended that the complainant submitted the written request regarding missing of Tag No. OIC-A-3764 of her buffalo and requested for re-tagging  through process of bank, the opposite party No.1 marked the application of the complainant to Veterinary Surgeon, Muwana on 28.7.2014 with the remarks ‘kindly arrange the punch the tag on buffalo’ and also delivered a fresh tag No. OIC-30857 to the complainant and returned the said original application with seal and sign of the opposite party No.1 to the complainant. As per instructions of opposite party No.1 gave the said application along with fresh tag No. OIC-30857 to the Veterinary Surgeon, Muwana. Thereupon Veterinary Surgeon, Muwana  
            Smt. Raj Kumari Vs. OBC etc.
                    …6…
inserted the above said  fresh tag in the ear of buffalo of complainant. The Veterinary Surgeon Muwana assessed the value of her dead 
buffalo amounting to Rs.45,000/- and also mentioned the tag No. OIC-30857 of the said dead buffalo in the post-mortem report. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party.
5.     In  evidence, the complainant has produced her own affidavit  Ex. C-1, letter dated 13.9.2012 Ex. C-2, copy of Veterinary Health Certificate Ex. C-3, policy schedule Ex. C-4, copy of application Ex. C-5, post-mortem report Ex. OP-6, copy of letter dated 14.8.2014 Ex. C-7, copy of letter Ex. C-8, copy of Aadhar card Ex. C-9, copy of pass-book Ex. C-10, copies of bank receipts Ex. C-11 to Ex. C-16 and copy of affidavit of complainant Ex. C-17 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, the opposite party No.3 has produced the affidavit of  Smt. Bala Ex. OP-1 and copy of pass-book Ex. OP-2 and closed the evidence. Opposite party No.2 has produced the affidavit of Sh. Mahabir Singh, Sr. Divisional Manager Ex. OP-3, affidavit of Gita Ram Parmar Adv. Ex. OP-4, copy of policy schedule Ex. OP-5, copy of letter Ex. OP-6, copy of Veterinary Health Certificate Ex. OP-7, copy of post-mortem report Ex. OP-8, copy of  certificate Ex. OP-9, copy of claim form Ex. OP-10 and copy of application Ex. OP-11 and closed the evidence. Opposite party No.1 has produced the affidavit of Sh. Akshay Rana, Branch Manager Ex. OP-12 and closed the evidence.
6.    We have heard Ld. counsels of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file. The main objection of the opposite party 
            Smt. Raj Kumari Vs. OBC etc.
                    …7…
No.2 for repudiation the claim is that as per health certificate and policy there was a tag No. OIC-3764 was intact in the ear of the cattle 
but at the time of death tag was found having No.OIC-30857 and tag did not tally with each other so the claim of the complainant was repudiated. On the other hand, the version of the complainant is that on 25.7.2014 she went to the village pond for bathing her buffalo. After bathing she came to know that the tag has been misplaced in the village pond during bathing. In this regard she immediately informed the opposite party No.1 on the same day. On the application of the complainant dated 25.7.2014 and the same was marked by Manager of the Bank to V.S. Narwana with the endorsement to kindly arrange to punch the new tag of buffalo. It is also written on the application that “retagged on dated 28.7.2014 tag No. OIC-30857”. On the other hand, the objection of the opposite party No.1 bank that they never issued any new tag to the complainant and it is not the duty of the bank to issue the new tag. The plea taken by the opposite party No.1 bank is not tenable because if they have no power to issue the new tag then how can the officer of the bank direct the veterinary surgeon to insert the new tag in the ear of the buffalo of the complainant. During the course of argument the Bench has put a question from the counsel of opposite party No.1 whether the insurance company provides the tag to the bank in bulk. Replying the query of the Forum, the counsel for opposite parity No.1 admitted that  the insurance company provides the tag to the bank and bank issues the tag to the loanee for inserting the same in the insured cattle through veterinary surgeon.  From the 
            Smt. Raj Kumari Vs. OBC etc.
                    …8…
above discussion and facts it reveals that the  insurance of the buffalo was done by opposite party No.2 through opposite party No.1 i.e. bank 
and   opposite party No.1bank has failed  to inform the opposite party No.2 regarding the issuance of new tag and there is lapses on the part of the bank. The other objection of opposite party No.2 is that the description of the dead buffalo does not match with the insured buffalo. We have gone through the health certificate dated 21.12.2012 Ex. OP-3 and Ex. OP-7  which is same, wherein   Description/identification mark of the animal are mentioned below:-
Details           Description as per Health        
              Certificate                

1.    Horns     Semi Curved                
2.    Tail            Switch of White                    
3.    Other      White spot on fore head
        character

We have also gone through the post-mortem report Ex. C-6 and Ex. OP-8 are the same, wherein the veterinary surgeon has reported in column of description and breed of dead animal as under:-
‘mixed murah, horn semi curved, black colour, tail switch white, white spot on forehead.’
After comparing the health certificate Ex. OP-7 and Ex. C-3 and Post-mortem report Ex. OP-8 the description of animal with breed as Murah buffalo with fully curved horns long tail white switch, spot on forehead and as such the description of the cattle in post-mortem reports  tally with each other. The post-mortem report of the 
            Smt. Raj Kumari Vs. OBC etc.
                    …9…
veterinary surgeon is authentic one and admissible under the law and the above document cannot be dis-believable. Besides this  the 
insurance company has failed to file the surveyor report along with  photographs of dead buffalo  upon which they  relied upon and repudiate the claim of the complainant. So plea taken by the  opposite party No.2 is not tenable in the eyes of law.  
7.    In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that opposite party No.2 has wrongly  repudiated the claim of the complainant. Deficiency in service is established on the part of the opposite party No.2. Resultantly, the complaint is accepted in the interest of justice and opposite party No.2 is directed to pay the insured amount of Rs.45,000/-.  It is further directed to opposite party No.2 to make the payment first to opposite party No.1 bank towards the loan obtained by the complainant if any due against the complainant qua loan obtain by the complainant regarding buffalo in question. The order be complianced within 30 days from the date of receiving the order,  In case of failure, the opposite party No.2 will pay a simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 17.11.2014 till its realization. Parties will bear their own costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
Announced on: 30.5.2016
                                              President,
       Member       Member                 District Consumer Disputes                                          Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

        Smt. Raj Kumari Vs. OBC etc.                   

Present:  Sh. Ram Pal Singh Adv. for complainant.
              Sh. S.N. Singh Adv. for opposite party No.1.
          Sh. Satish Bhardwaj  Adv. for opposite party No.2. 
          Sh. Shamsher Jaglan Adv. for opposite party No.3.

              Remaining arguments heard. To come up on 30.5.2016 for orders. 
                                      President,
        Member              Member         DCDRF, Jind
                                  27.5.2016

Present:  Sh. Ram Pal Singh Adv. for complainant.
              Sh. S.N. Singh Adv. for opposite party No.1.
          Sh. Satish Bhardwaj  Adv. for opposite party No.2. 
          Sh. Shamsher Jaglan Adv. for opposite party No.3.

           Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.  
                                       President,
        Member              Member         DCDRF, Jind
                                30.5.2016