DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, LUCKNOW

CASE No.670 of 2004

       Smt. Mohana,

       W/o Sri Ram Dulare,

       R/o Gram Dalona, Block Mohanlalganj,

       Tehsil- Mohanlalganj, Lucknow.

                                                                    ……Complainant

Versus

        Manager,

        The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,

        Branch Office-4, Above Canara Bank,

        Aaditya Bhawan, Aminabad,

        Lucknow.

                                                                                 .......Opp. Party

Present:-

Sri Vijai Varma, President.

Sri Rajarshi Shukla, Member.

JUDGMENT

This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the OP for payment of Rs.7,330.00, compensation of Rs.3,000.00 and cost of litigation of Rs.2,000.00.

          The case in brief of the Complainant is that she had, under the Government scheme of IRDP/DRDA, taken loan for purchasing two buffaloes, the cost of which were Rs.14,000.00, each costing Rs.7,000.00. The Complainant had got the buffaloes insured and had deposited the certificates in Bank of India, Mohanlalganj. She had opened saving bank a/c No.1595 in the Bank of India and it is through that a/c that she had taken the loan from the bank. The Complainant had nearly paid off the loan of the first buffalo and only Rs.330.00 remained to be paid by her and it is only then that the bank had extended loan for the other buffalo. The insured buffalos were tagged with tag numbers 55914/22120 and 84167/22120. The buffaloes remained healthy for a few years but after 4 years the buffaloes died within the interval of 1 month and she tried to take loan during the illness of the buffalo but no loan was

-2-

given to the Complainant by the OP and hence the buffaloes died due to illness. The Complainant has completed the entire formalities but the insured amount has not been paid to her. The bank has also issued RC for recovery of the loan because of which the Complainant is facing a lot of difficulty whereas the insured amount is not being paid to her, hence this complaint.

          The OP has filed the WS wherein it is mainly submitted that no cover note has been provided to the OP nor any death certificate of the buffaloes were given to the OP. Besides Bank of India has not been made a party in this case. This case has been filed for payment of insured amount of two buffaloes but because of two buffaloes two causes of action arise for which two separate cases be filed whereas only one complaint has been filed. The cover note and tag number has not been made available, hence the insurance is not admitted and if the Complainant provides cover note and tag number then the OP reserves the right of filing additional WS. On the basis of aforesaid ground this complaint deserves to be dismissed.

          The OP has also filed additional WS wherein it is submitted that the claim form has been submitted after 4 months whereas it should have been submitted within 30 days. Besides from the information provided it appears that there was no tag in the ears of the buffalo at the time of her death. When the animal was ill then no information was given. Besides because of the non availability of the insurance cover the buffalo cannot be properly identified. The aforesaid information was obtained on getting the tag number examined by the OP. Another additional WS has been filed by the OP on 27.04.2015 wherein it is mentioned that the OP has made payment of the claim pertaining to tag No.84167/22120 by paying Rs.4,000.00 through cheque No.834198 dated 18.01.2002.

-3-

The Complainant has filed the objection to the additional WS dated 27.04.2015.

          The Complainant has filed her affidavit with 1 paper and 2 papers with the complaint. The OP has filed the affidavit of Sri Devendra Pant, Senior Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and an affidavit of Sri K.L. Gupta, Senior Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. with 3 annexures. The OP has also filed the carbon copy of no claim letter.

          Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.

          Now, in this case, first of all, it is to be ascertained as to whether there was insurance of the buffaloes of the Complainant with the OP or not? Secondly, it is to be ascertained as to whether the OP has committed deficiency in service in not making payment of the insured amount to the Complainant or not? It is also to be ascertained as to whether this complaint is not maintainable for non joinder of the parties.

          The point No.1 and 3 are related to each other, hence they are disposed of together. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the OP that the cover note was not provided to the OP, therefore it cannot be said that there was any insurance of the buffaloes but this point is negated by the facts mentioned in the additional WS filed by the OP wherein it is submitted by the OP that the OP has made payment of the claim pertaining to tag No.84167/22120 by cheque No.831498 dated 18.01.2002 for a sum of Rs.4,000.00. The OP has also filed the affidavit of Sri K.L. Gupta, Senior Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. who has stated in his affidavit that with regard to tag No.84167/22120 pertaining to claim No.47/2001/330/66 a sum of Rs.4,000.00 was paid by cheque No.834198 dated 18.01.2002 to Smt. Mohana and a letter regarding that has also been issued by the Divisional office on

-4-

16.03.2005, a copy of which has been filed which also shows that Rs.4,000.00 was paid to Smt. Mohana with regard to her claim pertaining to tag No.84167/22120. Now, here a question arises as to when there was no cover note as is the argument of the Counsel for the OP then why this payment has been made to the Complainant. Obviously, there is no answer and hence it is clear that there was insurance of the buffalo pertaining to tag No.55914/22120. Since the contention of the OP is negated by their own admission that there was no insurance of the buffalo to tag No.55914/22120, it is clear that their contention about tag 55914/22120 is also incorrect as the Complainant has given photocopy of the claim of the death of the buffalo with tag 55914/22120. The Complainant has also filed the photocopy of the death certificate with tag 55914/22120. There are reasons to believe that this buffalo with tag 55914/22120 was also insured with the OP as the contention of the OP that there was no insurance of the buffaloes was found to be incorrect with regard to buffalo with tag 841767/22120. In fact there is the photocopy of the letter of the OP issued on 03.11.2000 wherein it is clearly mentioned that the claim pertaining to tag 55914/22120 pertaining to claim No.47/2001/33055 was not payable as it was received after 4 months. There does not appear to be any rationale for rejecting the claim on the basis of the detail as it has not been proved by the OP that the claim was preferred after the period of limitation. In fact making payment of one of the claims and not making payment of the other claim shows that the OP has committed deficiency in service in not making payment of both the claims. Since the matter pertaining to the insurance cover note has not been found of much relevance in the face of the OP themselves admitting the payment of the insurance claim, therefore it is not material if the Bank of India has not been made a party because no relief is sought against Bank of India and the issue of cover note is in fact settled by the

-5-

admission of the OP themselves. Therefore, it cannot be said that the complaint is bad for non joiner of the parties. From the discussions made above, it is clear that there were two buffaloes with two different tag numbers for which there was insurance done by the Complainant with the OP and there is evidence on record to prove that the buffaloes died but when the Complainant preferred claims with the OP then only a partial amount was paid for one of the insured buffaloes and no payment was made with regard to the other buffalo. Now, here a question arises as to whether the amount of Rs.4,000.00 was the correct amount paid by the OP with regard to one of the claims preferred by the Complainant. In this regard, it is the contention of the Complainant that both the buffaloes were insured for a sum of Rs.14,000.00 i.e. Rs.7,000.00 for each buffalo. In this regard, the Complainant has also filed a photocopy of the saving bank a/c No.15959 which shows Rs.7,000.00 deposited twice in December, 1997 and this amount according to the Complainant is the amount which was advanced to her as loan for purchasing the buffaloes. There is no document to contradict it that this is a false bank statement provided by the Complainant, therefore in view of the assertion of the Complainant made in her affidavit that she was given loan for Rs.7,000.00 for each buffalo totaling Rs.14,000.00 coupled with the bank statement where these withdrawals of Rs.7,000.00 first showing the deposit and thereafter the withdrawal shows that the Complainant had got the insurance of the buffaloes for Rs.7,000.00 each from the amount advanced to her by loan, therefore there is reason to believe that the buffaloes were insured for Rs.7,000.00 each. It is the contention of the Complainant that she did not get any amount with regard to the claims made by her on the death of her two buffaloes but the OP has proved that Rs.4,000.00 was paid to her for one of the claims and the OP has also filed the photocopy of the details of the payments made by the OP and

-6-

in that statement of a/c the Complainant shows to have made payment of Rs.4,000.00. The OP has also filed the photocopy of the payment made on 28.01.2002 to Bank of India through cheque No.834198 for a sum of Rs.4,000.00. Thus, on the basis of these documents, it is clear that Rs.4,000.00 was paid by cheque to the Complainant. So, now the OP has only made payment of Rs.4,000.00 whereas the OP should have paid Rs.14,000.00 as claimed by the Complainant, hence Rs.10,000.00 remained to be paid to the Complainant but as the Complainant has sought payment of Rs.7,330.00 only, therefore the Complainant is entitled to Rs.7,330.00 with 9% interest. The Complainant has also been harassed in this regard, hence she is entitled to get compensation. The Complainant is also entitled to sufficient cost of the litigation as she has been fighting this case for the last about 12 years.

ORDER

          The complaint is partly allowed. The OP is directed to pay Rs.7,330.00 (Rupees Seven Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Only) with 9% interest from the date of filing of the case till the final payment is made to the Complainant.

The OP 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 to the Complainant.

The compliance of the order is to be made within a month.

         (Rajarshi Shukla)                                    (Vijai Varma)

                Member                                              President

Dated:    20 April, 2016