Orissa

Cuttak

CC/27/2019

Santosh Behera - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

R Pati

15 Feb 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                                C.C.No.27/2019

 

                  Santosh Behera,

    S/O:Pandab Behera,

    BaulaulaChhak,Bidanasi,

    P.S:Cuttack.                                                            ... Complainant.

          Vrs.

 

1. United India Insurance,

Satya Nagar,Bhubaneswar-751007

 

2. Veterinary Assistant Surgeon,

Veterinary Hospital,

            Buxibazar,Cuttack.

 

3. Secretary to Govt. of Odiasha Fisheries

And Animal Resources Development Department,Odisha,

Bhubaneswar.                                                                           ...Opp. Parties.

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    27.10.2019

Date of Order:  15.02.2023

 

For the complainant:            Mr. R.Pati,adv. & Associates.

For the O.ps no.1 :  Mr. S.Mishra,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P no.2 &3 :Dr. Roshni Budh(V.A.S).

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.  

 

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that in order to earn his livelihood he had procured cows and deals with milk business.  He had insured his purchased cow through O.P no.2 after verification on 20.3.17 and accordingly Ear Tag was issued vide no.UII/16-310007436580.  The price of the cow was insured for an assured value of Rs.24,000/- and after completion of all the formalities, the cow card was issued to the complainant.  The said purchased cow had some respiratory disorders and four days after being treated as such by O.P no.2, the said cow died on 25.7.17.  The matter was duly informed to the O.P no.2 and post-mortem was done accordingly.  In order to settle the death benefit, the bank account details were submitted but O.P no.1 through their letter dt.18.10.17 had repudiated the claim of the petitioner since because the scheme period was for 2014 to 2015.  The complainant thereafter had made several representations including the same before insurance Ombudsman for redressal and ultimately had filed this case before this Commission seeking compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the O.Ps towards his mental and physical harassment together with interest thereon @ 12% per annum besides the cost of the cow which had expired to the tune of Rs.24,000/- and further compensation of Rs.20,000/- together with cost of his expenses for his  litigation of Rs.5000/-.

            He has filed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.            All the O.Ps have contested this case but O.P no.1 has filed his separate written version whereas O.Ps no.2 & 3 have filed their written version jointly.  According to the written version of O.P no.1,  there is no cause of action for this case which is bad under the principles ofestopel, waiver and acquiescence, also bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties and also barred by limitations.  According to O.P no.1, the Ear Tag no.UII/16 310007436580 was not insured with him on the material date, time and place.  According to O.P no.1, the cow-card was issued in favour of the said cow for the year 2013-14.  The policy card reveals that it was one year policy and the cow had died after the expiry of said policy.  As such, O.P no.1 has no liability.  The cow-card issuedfor2013-14 was not within the knowledge of O.P no.1 and the cow had died on 25.7.17 which is after the expiry of the policy.  Accordingly, it is prayed by O.P no.1 to dismiss the complaint petition as filed by the complainant.

O.Ps no.2 & 3 through their written version have stated that the cost of the cow of the complainant was of Rs.24,000/- for which the premium was paid to the tune of Rs.360/- on 30.3.17.  Out of the same, an amount of Rs.180/- was paid by the complainant/farmer whereas the rest amount of premium was borne by the Govt.  The insurance amount was paid to the Chief District Veterinary Officer, Cuttack vide SBI cheque no.449710 dt.6.4.2017.  Correspondences were made to the CDVO,Cuttack for issuance of policy papers of all the 197 animals insured in the month of March,2017 under the Veterinary Hospital,Buxibazar,Cuttack through office letter no277 dt.1.12.17.  The alleged cow showed respiratory disorders and was having high temperature since 20.7.17 which was brought to the notice of the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon on 22.7.17 and was under treatment, but on 25.7.17 the said cow had died at 4.p.m. for which post-mortem was conducted on 26.7.17 and the report thereof was submitted to the CDVO,Cuttack vide office letter no.150 dt.27.7.17.  The claim of the complainant was settled vide letter no.448/CDVO,Cuttack on 18.10.17.

Alongwith their written version, O.Ps no.2 & 3 have also filed copies of several documents in order to prove their stand.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written versions of O.Ps, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue no.II.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

Admittedly, the purchased cow of the complainant had died.  The plea of the O.P no.1 is that the cow having Ear Tag No.UII/16 310007436580 was not insured with O.P no.1.  According to O.P no.1, the cow-card was issued in favour of the alleged cow for the year 2013-14 but nowhere it was proved that there was renewal of such policy.  O.P no.1 has further alleged that it was a one year old policy and the cow had died after the elapse of thepolicy.  But the written version of O.Ps no.2 & 3 as submitted by the then Veterinary Assistant Surgeon,Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Buxibuzar, Cuttack discloses that the cow of the complainant having Ear Tag No.UII/16 310007436580 was insured for a sum of Rs.24,000/- on 30.3.17 and the premium amount of  Rs.360/- was shared where the complainant had paid to the tune of Rs.180/- and the rest part was borne by the Govt.  The premium amount was paid to the CDVO,Cuttack vide SBI cheque no.449710 dt.6.4.17.  In this context the written version of O.Ps no.2 & 3 also reveals that there were 197 animals insured in the month of March,2017 including the cow of the complainant and this was intimated through office letter no.277 dt.1.12.17.  Thus, the plea of O.P no.1 that the cow of the complainant was purchased and insured for the year 2013-14 appears to be false.  The complainant as it appears had purchased his cow which had died on 25.7.17 and it was intimated duly by the complainant to O.P no.2 for which post-mortem was conducted.  Ofcourse, this aspect is not disputed by O.P no.1.The O.P No.1 while advancing his argument has harped upon Annexure-1 which is the copy of the cow-card as annexed to the complaint petition.The same reflects in Oriya that it was for the year 2013-14.  So in this way it is the contention of O.P no.1 that the said cow-card was for the year 2013-14 and not for the year 2017 but the signatory therein at the bottom of Annexure-1 as it reflects the seal of the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Buxibazar,Cuttack,  was signed on 20.3.17.  Thus, here inference can easily be drawn that  the Veterinary Department had used an old form of 2013-14 in order to reflect the purchased and insured cow of the complainant for a sum of Rs.24,000/- reflecting therein the premium amount of Rs.360/- out of which the complainant was to pay a sum of Rs.180/- and the said insurance had a term period of one year as reflected.  Thus, the contention of the O.P no.1 regarding the cow of the complainant was insured for the year 2013-14  appears to be false and is thus shattered.  The copies of the 197 number of animals as insured by the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Veterinary Hospital,Buxibazar,CuttackvideAnnexure-2 as attached to complaint petition reflects that Ear Tag No.UII/16 310007436580 of the complainant Santosh Behera was also insured for a sum of Rs.24,000/- and out of the premium amount of Rs.360/- the complainant had paid Rs.180/-.

Thus, the purchased cow of the complainant had died which is admitted.  The complainant had paid the premium share of Rs.180/- towards insuring his cow for a sum of Rs.24,000/-.  It is the contention of O.P no.1 that the said cow had not died within the subsistence of the policy period and rather he has taken the plea that the insurance of the cow was for the year 2013-14 which is absolutely wrong.  The O.P no.1 has not produced any document in order to prove that none of the 197 number of animals were insured by O.Ps no.2 & 3 through him.The simple plea of O.P no.1 in this case is that the alleged cow of the complainant was insured for the year 2013-14 for a period of one year and since because there was no insurance prevailing for the said cow of the complainant during the year 2017, the death of the said cow of the complainant would not be covered through any insurance policy of O.P no.1.  To the contrary, it is the written version of both the O.Psno.2 & 3 who happens to be Govt. officials, that the cow of the complainant alongwith other animals were insured in the month of March,2017.They have also specified at para no.1 of their written version that the cow having Ear Tag No.UII/16 310007436580 was insured for a sum of Rs.24,000/- on 30.3.17 for a premium amount of Rs.360/- out of which the complainant/farmer had shared Rs.180/- and the rest premium amount was borne by the Govt.  This contention of O.Ps no.2 & 3 is not disputed by O.P no.1.  Thus, from the facts and circumstances of this case, as discussed herein, this Commission is of a opinion that infact the cow of the complainant which died on 25.7.17 was insured for a sum of Rs.24,000/- and as per the Govt. scheme, the complainant had paid his share of premium ofRs.180/-out of the total premium of Rs.360/-.  Thus, when the cow of the complainant had died and he had applied for the assured amount of Rs.24,000/-, by not settling his claim the O.Ps are found to be deficient in their service here in this case.  Accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the complainant.

Issue no.i.

The O.P no.1 has stated through his written version that the case of the complainant is bad by the principles of estopel, waiver and acquiescence and also bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties.  It is also the plea of the O.P no.1 that the case of the complainant is barred by limitation.  Admittedly as per the above discussions, the cow of the complainant had died on 25.7.17 and the case has been filed before this Commission on 22.2.19. As per the provisions of the C.P.Act, the period of limitation is for two yeas enabling the complainant to file his case before this Commission from the date of the cause of action.  When the cow died on 25.7.17 and the case has been filed on 27.2.19, it can well be said here in this case that the case has been filed within the period of limitation and this case is never barred on the point of limitation.  The O.P no.1 has not specified as to who were the necessary parties, those were to be added as O.Ps here in this case.  Thus, the simple averment as made by O.P no.1 in his written version that the case is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties does not hold good.  Moreso, the O.P no.1 has also not proved as to how thecase became bad by the principles of estopel, waiver and acquiescence.  Accordingly, it is found that the case of the complainant is definitely maintainable and this issue thus goes in favour of the complainant.

 

 

Issue no.iii.

From the discussions as made above, the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.

                                                ORDER

The case is decreed on contest against the O.Ps and exparte who are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  Thus, the O.Ps are directed to pay the complainant the assured claim amount of Rs.24,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum with effect from18.10.2017 till the total amount is quantified.  The O.Ps are also directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for his mental agony and harassment together with a sum of Rs.5000/- towards his litigation expenses within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 15^th day of February,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.    

                                                                           

                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                         Member