DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, LUCKNOW

CASE No.23 of 2005

       Smt. Shanti,

       W/o Sri Ved Prakash,

       R/o Bhawani Khera,

       Majra Samesi, Post-Smesi,

       Thana-Nagram, District-Lucknow.

                                                                   ……Complainant

Versus

                 1. Branch Manager,

                    UCO Bank, Branch-Samesi,

                    Nagram, Lucknow.

                 2. Branch Manager,

                   United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

                   Branch-6, Capital Building,

                   Vidhan Sabha Marg, Lucknow.

                                                                              .......Opp. Parties

Present:-

Sri Vijai Varma, President.

Smt. Anju Awasthy, Member.

Sri Rajarshi Shukla, Member.

JUDGMENT

This complaint has been filed by the Complainant against the OPs for payment of insured amount of RS.10,000.00, compensation of Rs.40,000.00 and other miscellaneous expenses of Rs.5,000.00.

          The case in brief of the Complainant is that he was given a loan of Rs.10,000.00 for purchasing a buffalo from OP No.1 through Milk Production Sehkari Samiti Ltd. The Complainant insured his buffalo with OP No.2, the tag No. being U-1/082401/2002. Due to illness the aforesaid buffalo died on 26.08.2003 and the information of the same was sent to the OPs on the same day on which the post-mortem of buffalo was done on 27.08.2003 but despite many efforts the

-2-

Complainant did not get the insured amount. The Complainant has suffered mentally as the OPs did not pay the insured amount to the Complainant. The Complainant sent notice to the OPs on 15.06.2004 but till date no payment has been made by the OPs, hence this complaint.

          The OP No.1 has filed the WS wherein it is mainly submitted that the Complainant applied for and was granted loan of Rs.10,000.00 for purchasing a buffalo and according to Complainant the said buffalo was insured by her with OP No.2. The Complainant after obtaining the loan did not submit “Rawanna” and health certificate of the said animal as required under rule. As the requisite papers to complete insurance formalities were not submitted by the Complainant and requisite insurance premium, if any, was also not paid, therefore, question of insurance through bank does not arise. It is admitted that loan of Rs.10,000.00 was granted for purchasing of buffalo and its ear tag and insurance with OP No.2 is denied for want of knowledge. The Complainant never approached to the bank in respect of insurance amount as the same, if any, ought to have been claimed from OP No.2. Insurance amount, if any, was to be paid by OP No.2 and not by OP No.1.There is no role of the bank for settlement of claim between owner of the animal and the insurance company. The notice was given by the Complainant to the bank. The Complainant is not entitled to claim any relief from the answering bank as insurance of the buffalo, if any, was done by Complainant it should have been claimed from the insurance company directly and bank has no role and no question of deficiency in service on the part of answering bank arises. The complaint is liable to be dismissed against the answering bank.

          The OP No.2 has filed the WS wherein it is mainly submitted that the OP No.2 informed about the death of the

-3-

buffalo after much delay and that the answering OP got the information on 29.08.2003. The Complainant had not informed the OP and it is wrong statement by the Complainant that the post mortem of the buffalo was done on the direction of the OP. The claim of the Complainant was rejected as per norms after getting the matter enquired through an impartial enquiry and the information about the same was given by the answering OP to the loanee UCO bank vide letter dated 22.10.2003. Thus, the insurance of the animal under master policy agreement wherein the contract is between the answering OP and the bank and DRDA whereby the job of buying the animal and thereafter to obtain a medical certificate after getting them medically examined and tying a tag in the ear of the animal is the responsibility of the loanee bank. The loanee bank sends the premium amount alongwith tag number and the medical certificate of the animal to the answering OP and thereafter the answering OP after tallying the tag number mentioned in the medical certificate issues the policy. The Complainant never sent the information about the death of the animal to the answering OP. Though under the conditions of the policy bond, on the death of the insured animal the information is given to the office of the insurer Co. and thereafter within 24 hours of the information, will give the opportunity of the inspection of the animal done but the Complainant did not give any information about the death of the buffalo and has got the post-mortem of the dead buffalo done arbitrarily without informing the answering OP. For getting the claim of the Complainant verified an investigator went to the village of the Complainant where he was informed that the Complainant’s both buffaloes had died and that the husband of the Complainant Sri Ved Prakash had given the statement that the death of the buffalo occurred on 25.09.2003 and that she was medically examined by the veterinary doctor on 26.09.2003 whereas according to the post-mortem report

-4-

the buffalo had died on 26.08.2003 at 5.00 pm and her post-mortem was done on 27.08.2003 at about 11.30 am and that in the treatment chart the days of treatment are given as 25.08.2003 and 26.08.2003. From the report of the veterinary doctor, Nagram the buffalo is alleged to have died on 26.08.2003 whereas according to Sri Ved Prakash the buffalo died on 25.09.2003, therefore there is difference on dates of death of the buffalo making the case of the suspicion one, therefore the claim of the Complainant was rejected. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OP, therefore this case is liable to be dismissed with costs.

          The Complainant has filed her reply to the WS of OP No.1 and 2.

          The Complainant has filed her affidavit and affidavit of her husband and a copy of the registered notice. The Complainant has filed written arguments. The OP No.2 has filed the affidavit of Sri Sunil Agarwal with 9 annexures.

          Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.

          In this case, there is no dispute that the Complainant’s buffalo was insured with the OP No.2 for a sum of Rs.10,000.00. The dispute according to the Complainant is that when her buffalo died and she pressed the claim with the OPs for the payment of the insured amount then the OPs did not make the payment of the insured amount, hence they have committed deficiency in service whereas according to the OP No.2, the information about the death of the buffalo of Complainant was given after much delay and there was doubt about the date of the death of the buffalo, hence the case being suspicious one, the claim was rejected and they did not commit any deficiency in service. The OP No.2 has admitted that the buffalo with tag No.U-1/082401/7002 was insured with them. The OP No.2 has filed a copy of the information about the death of the Complainant’s buffalo as annexure 1 with the

-5-

affidavit of OP No.2 given by the OP No.1. From this document, it is clear that the OP No.2 was informed about the death of the buffalo with tag No.U-1/082401/7002. Learned Counsel for the OPs has argued that the investigator Mr. Dwivedi has filed the enquiry report wherefrom it is clear that the Complainant’s both buffaloes had died and that she now was not having any buffalo and that Sri Ved Prakash the husband of the Complainant had informed in writing that he had already received claim of one of his buffaloes and the other buffalo had died on 25.09.2003 whereas as per the report of the veterinary doctor buffalo had died on 26.08.2003, therefore there is much difference between the dates of death of the buffalo, therefore the claim appeared to be doubtful and hence it was rejected by the OPs. In this regard, they have also mentioned the statement given by the husband of the Complainant Sri Ved Prakash given on 18.10.2003 wherein he has stated that the buffalo had died on 25.09.2003 whereas her post-mortem was done on 26.09.2003 and on the basis of the above facts it is argued by the learned Counsel for the OPs that there is much difference between the dates of death as claimed by the Complainant i.e. 26.08.2003 and that her post-mortem was done on 27.08.2003 whereas according to the statement of Complainant’s husband Sri Ved Prakash the buffalo had died on 25.09.2003 that her post-mortem was done on 26.09.2003. But learned Counsel for the Complainant argues in this regard that this statement has been wrongly recorded by the investigator of the OPs and the dates are wrongly written by the investigator and that from the post-mortem report of the buffalo it is clear that the date and time of the death of buffalo was 26.08.2003 at 5.00 pm and that of post-mortem as 27.08.2003 at 11.30 am. While considering the arguments of the learned Counsel for both the parties it is found that the post-mortem report of the buffalo is with regard to tag No.U-1/082401/7002, therefore there is reason to believe that the

-6-

buffalo in question had died on 26.08.2003. In view of the aforesaid documentary evidence, it is clear that either the statement of the Complainant’s husband Sri Ved Prakash on 18.10.2003 was wrongly written or the information by the Complainant’s husband Sri Ved Prakash was under misconception. The fact remains that the Complainant’s buffalo with tag No.U-1/082401/7002 had died on 26.08.2003 and that her post-mortem was done on 27.08.2003 as is evident from the post-mortem report dated 27.08.2003. The Complainant has also supported aforesaid documents with her affidavit and thus from the statement on oath as well as by the documentary evidence of the letter written by OP No.1 to OP No.2 about the death of the buffalo and the post-mortem report dated 27.08.2003 it is clear that the Complainant’s buffalo had died on 26.08.2003. Since the buffalo in question was insured with OP No.2, therefore OP No.2 was under obligation to make payment of the insured amount to the Complainant but the OP No.2 has repudiated the claim of the Complainant instead of allowing it, therefore the OP No.2 has committed deficiency in service. The Complainant, therefore, is entitled to get the insured amount of Rs.10,000.00 from OP No.2. The Complainant also appears to have been harassed in this case, therefore she is entitled to get compensation as well as cost of the litigation as the case is a very old one.

          There does not appear to be any deficiency in service committed by OP No.1 in the payment of loan, therefore no action against OP No.1 is required.

ORDER

          The complaint is partly allowed. The OP No.2 is directed to pay the insured amount of Rs.10,000.00 (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with 9% per annum interest from the date of filing of the case till the final payment is made to the Complainant.

-7-

          The OP No.2 is also directed to pay Rs.3,000.00 (Rupees Three Thousand Only) as compensation and Rs.4,000.00 (Rupees Four Thousand Only) as cost of the litigation. The compliance of the order is to be made within a month.

  (Rajarshi Shukla)          (Anju Awasthy)            (Vijai Varma)

         Member                          Member                 President

Dated:   26  September, 2015