By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President OP.423/05 The case of complainant is that the complainant had insured with the 1st respondent her goats vide policy No.100602/47/02/01169. The goats were insured through the 2nd respondent. One goat was died within the policy period and in consequent to that the complainant submitted the claim along with certificate from 2nd respondent. But the claim was not honoured. Hence the complaint. 2. The counter of 1st respondent is that a policy is issued in the name of 2nd respondent for a period from 30/1/03 to 29/1/04 covering the goats as stated in the schedule. The Treasury cheque dated 28/1/03 for a sum of Rs.3,696/- was accepted. But the cheque is not encashed though due efforts are made. The cheque was given to the Canara Bank where this respondent is having account and the cheque was sent for collection from Canara Bank to Treasury on several occasions and the same was returned without encashing. The matter was reported to the 2nd respondent and the cheque was revalidated on28/4/03, 10/11/03, 23/1/04,22/4/04 and 21/7/04. The 2nd respondent has issued the certificate stating the above facts on 28/7/04. Since no premium is received by the company and since there is violation of section 64 VB, the policy issued is void abinitio and the company is not liable to pay any compensation. Hence dismiss against this respondent. 3. The counter of 2nd and 3rd respondents is that the 2nd respondent as a part of Janakeeyasuthranam scheme had insured 48 goats and the premium of Rs.3,696/- was paid by the 2nd respondent vide treasury cheque No.651287 dated 28/1/03. The cheque was given to the 1st respondent and receipt No.15223 was issued. The 48 goats were covered under policy No.100602/47102/01169 for the period 30/1/03 to 29/1/04. The treasury cheque was presented through Canara Bank, Chalakkudy, the collection bank of the insurance company for realization of the cheque amount. The cheque was returned by the collection bank several times. The validity of the treasury cheque being 3 months from the date of issue it was revalidated several times by the 2nd respondent on request of the 1st respondent. In spite of repeated presentation through the collection bank of the company, the amount could not be collected and credited to the company account due to various reasons. These respondents are not liable to give any compensation as claimed for. Insurance company is liable to give the compensation. As per the existing Government rules, there is strict direction that the amount should be paid as cheque. The amount which is paid as cheque is contributed by the persons who are insured in the scheme and also from the concerned Panchayat. Hence dismiss the complaint against these respondents. OP.427/05 The case of complainant is that the complainant had insured with the 1st respondent her goats vide policy No.100602/47/02/01169. The goats were insured through the 2nd respondent. One goat was died within the policy period and in consequent to that the complainant submitted the claim along with certificate from 2nd respondent. But the claim was not honoured. Hence the complaint. OP.428/09 The case of complainant is that the complainant had insured with the 1st respondent her goats vide policy No.100602/47/02/01169. The goats were insured through the 2nd respondent. One goat was died within the policy period and in consequent to that the complainant submitted the claim along with certificate from 2nd respondent. But the claim was not honoured. Hence the complaint. OP.429/05 The case of complainant is that the complainant had insured with the 1st respondent her goats vide policy No.100602/47/02/01169. The goats were insured through the 2nd respondent. One goat was died within the policy period and in consequent to that the complainant submitted the claim along with certificate from 2nd respondent. But the claim was not honoured. Hence the complaint. The counter in all the cases are same and is not repeating. Common points for consideration are: 1) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of respondents? 2) If so reliefs and costs? The evidence adduced consists of Exhibits R1 to R10 series on the part of 1st respondent and Exhibits R11 to R14 on the part of 2nd and 3rd respondents. No oral evidence adduced by both and also no documentary evidence on the part of complainants. All the complaints are filed against same respondents and subject matters of the claim are same. Hence joint trial was allowed. In all the cases the complainants stated that their goats were insured with the 1st respondent through the 2nd respondent. During the policy period some goats were died and they claimed to get the policy benefit along with the certificate of 2nd respondent. But the company dishonoured the claim of all the complainants. So these complaints are filed to get the policy benefits along with compensation. The 1st respondent company filed a detailed counter stating that the policy was issued in the name of 2nd respondent covering the goats of the persons stated in the schedule of the policy after receipt of Treasury cheque dated 28/1/03 for a sum of Rs.3996. But the cheque is not encashed so far. Since no premium is received by the company the policy issued is void abinitio. So the company is not liable to pay any compensation is the contention of the respondent company. The company has produced documents and marked as exhibits R1 to R10. Exhibit R10 is the uncashed cheque issued by the Veterinary surgeon in favour of the 1st respondent towards the premium. The definite case of 1st respondent is that the cheque was not encashed though due efforts are made by them. According to them the cheque was revalidated on 28/4/03, 10/11/03, 23/1/04, 22/4/04 and 21/7/04. As stated by the company there are endorsements with regard to the revalidation of the cheque on these various occasions. The cheque was not encashed till date as stated by the company. Since there is no acceptance of premium by the company there is no policy at all. As stated by the company the policy is void abinitio and the company is not at all liable to pay any amount to the complainants. There is no deficiency in service on the part of 1st respondent and the 1st respondent is exonerated from the liability. The cheque, Exhibit R10 was issued by the 2nd respondent to collect amount from the plan PD account of Veterinary surgeon, Athirappilly. The counter of Veterinary surgeon and the State is that inspite of repeated presentations through the collection bank of the insurance company, the amount could not be collected and credited to the company account due to various reasons. They further stated that the goats were insured as a part of Janakeeyasuthranam scheme. The counsel for 2nd and 3rd respondent argued that they are not liable to pay any compensation and due to various reasons the amount could not be collected and credited to the company. There is no reasons stated by the respondents for what reason the cheque was not honoured. The amount has to be drawn from the PD account of the Veterinary surgeon and it was the duty of 2nd respondent to confirm whether the amount has transferred to PD account by the Panchayat. Since the goats were insured as a part of Janakeeyasuthranam scheme the 2nd respondent is the implementing officer to implement these projects and the amount is to be derived from the concerned Panchayat. Here the 2nd respondent has no case that the panchayat failed to transfer money to his PD account. More over panchayat is not made a party in the complaint. It was the bounden duty of the 2nd respondent to ensure that there was sufficient fund in his account. He did not blame anybody. He merely stated that the amount could not be collected and credited to the company account due to various reasons. The “various reasons” he failed to disclose. So he is responsible to compensate the complainants. Since there is no valid policy with the company the company shall not made responsible for the complaints. As per Exhibit R10 there were endorsement of revalidation of the cheque on several occasions. The cheque was revalidated by the 2nd respondent and at the same time it was his duty to ensure there was sufficient fund in his account. He did not do so. So he is responsible to compensate. The 2nd and 3rd respondents produced Exhibits R11 to R14 to substantiate their case. They have produced Exhibit R12 receipt issued by the company, in which it is stated that ‘received with thanks from 2nd respondent a sum of Rs.3,696/- by cheque No.651257 dated 28/1/03. It is dated 29/1/03 and we do not understand for what purpose this receipt is produced by the respondents 2 and 3. They may have intention to mislead the Forum. But the date made it clear that it was issued by the company when cheque was accepted. Exhibit R10 cheque would clearly show the dates of revalidation and there were endorsements of revalidation in the year 2004 also. This is a case where 2nd respondent failed to perform his duty and there is clear deficiency in service on the part of this respondent He being a employee under the State, the State is also responsible to compensate the complainant. In the result the complaints are allowed and the 2nd and 3rd respondents are directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as the value of the deceased goat in OP.423/05 and an amount of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One thousand and five hundred only) the value of deceased goat in OP.427/05 and an amount of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One thousand and five hundred only) in OP.428/05 and an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) in OP.429/05 and an amount of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand and five hundred only)each as compensation to complainants with costs Rs.500/-(Rupees Five hundred only) each within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and if the amount is not paid within the stipulated time, the complainants are entitled for 12% interest for the amount of value of deceased goats. Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 23rd day of April 2010.
| | HONORABLE Rajani P.S., Member | HONORABLE Padmini Sudheesh, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE Sasidharan M.S, Member | | 
