State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Bolleboina Veeraswamy on 23 April, 2026
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
F.A.No. 431 OF 2022
AGAINST ORDERS IN C.C.13/2020
DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, WARANGAL
Between:
The United India Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office,
H.No.13-4-158 and 158/1,
First Floor, Sainath Arcade, beside Gopalaswamy Temple,
M.G.Road, Warangal.
...........Appellant/ Opposite Party No.2
And:
1.Bolleboina Veeraswamy, S/o Dudaiah, 55 years, Occ.: Shephard, R/o Pathipaka Village, Nekkonda Mandal, Warangal Rural District.
.........Respondent No.1/ Complainant
2. The State Bank of India, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch Office at H.No.2-260, Main Road, Nekkonda Village and Mandal, Warangal Rural Dist.
.
........Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.1 Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 : M/s. Srinivasa Rao Vutla Counsel for the Respondent No.1/ Complainant : M/s. P. Praveen Counsel for the Respondent No.2/ Opposite Party No.1 : Called Absent QUORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE DR.G.RADHA RANI, PRESIDENT HON'BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, MEMBER - (NON JUDICIAL) HON'BLE SMT R.S. RAJESHREE- MEMBER (NON-JUDICIAL) 2 THURSDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND TWENTY SIX ******* Order :
PER HON'BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, MEMBER (NON-JUDICIAL)
1. The appeal is filed U/s 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the Opposite Party No.2, aggrieved by the order of District Consumer Commission, Warangal, dated 25.01.2022 in CC 13/2020 where under the opposite party No.2 was directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,76,000/-
i.e. 22 sheep X Rs.8,000/-, with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of death of sheep i.e. 12.10.2019 to till its realization to the complainant and further directed to pay Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses and costs. The claim against the opposite party No.1 is dismissed.
2. The parties are herein after referred to as they were arrayed before the District Commission, as complainant and opposite parties.
3. The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant is an agriculturist and has great experience in rearing sheep, goats and cattle. He approached opposite party No.1 and availed a loan for purchase of sheep. The opposite party No.1/Bank sanctioned a loan to purchase 200 sheep and the loan was insured by opposite party No.2 vide policy bearing No.0506004718P111509276. On 12.10.2019, village dogs indiscriminately attacked the sheep and 23 sheep died due to the attack. The complainant contacted the veterinary doctor immediately who conducted the post mortem examination and submitted his report. The complainant submitted a claim vide No.0506004719C050075001 to the opposite party 3 No.2 with all necessary documents and photographs. The opposite party No.2 repudiated the claim vide letter dated 24.12.2019 on the ground that the complainant failed to intimate the opposite party No.2 Company soon after the incident. This ground advanced by the Insurance Company is not maintainable and amounts to deficiency in service. Due to their negligent attitude, the complainant has suffered mentally and physically and filed the present complaint seeking claim amount along with interest and compensation.
4. The brief averments of the written version of Opposite Party No.1 :- It is submitted that the complainant is an account holder of this opposite party and that he obtained loan for purchase of sheep. This opposite party is not concerned with the payment or repudiation of the policy amount. There is no specific allegation against this opposite party and it appears that the complainant made the bank as a proforma party and pray dismissal of the complaint against this opposite party.
5. (a) The brief averments of the written version of the opposite party No.2 :- This opposite party has issued the sheep Insurance policy for the sheep with Tag No.38101 to 38170 and 22391 to 22490. Finance was sanctioned by opposite party No.1 and the policy was issued on certain terms and conditions. It is their contention that as per death certificates submitted by the complainant - the sheep with tag No.1794 was not covered by the Insurance Policy. As per condition No. 8 of the policy which reads as follows:-
"on the death of any animal hereby insured, the insured shall give immediate notice thereof to the Company (at the office which issued the policy and shall give the Company an opportunity of inspecting carcass until at least the expiration of 24 hours after such notice shall have been received by the Company".4
(b) The insured shall also within 14 days submit the claim form along with the veterinary certificate and satisfactory proof to the Insurance Company/opposite party No.2. The complainant did not provide the necessary information to this opposite party, immediately after the death of the animals, thereby, violating the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on their part. Without prejudice to the above contention, they are liable to pay Rs.6,000/- for each sheep but the complainant is claiming an amount of Rs.8,000/- per sheep. The said claim is excessive and they pray that in the event of fastening liability on them, it must be restricted to Rs.6,000/- per sheep - as per the terms of the policy.
6. Before the Commission below, complainant filed evidence affidavit as PW1 and marked Ex.A1 to A5. One Sri Mandapally Babu, Branch Manager of the opposite party No.1 bank, filed affidavit as RW1. Smt.G.Laxmi, Senior Divisional Manager of the opposite party No.2 filed affidavit as RW2 and got marked Ex.B1.
7. The District Commission on considering the material on record allowed the complaint concluding that on mere technical grounds the claim cannot be rejected. The District Commission also held that people will lose their confidence in the Insurance Company for repudiating a genuine claim.
Aggrieved by the above orders, the Opposite Party No.2 preferred this appeal contending that the Commission below failed to consider the following grounds:
That the Commission below ought to have noted that the parties of the contract must be bound by the terms and conditions of the contract and the technicalities will not come in its way.5
That the Commission did not refer to the terms and conditions of the policy i.e. late intimation as being mere technicalities and thereby, allowed the complaint.
That the Commission below ought not have fixed the loss of each sheep Rs.8,000/- when the insured valued the sum assured at Rs.5,586.59ps. only, which is beyond the agreed rate.
That the Commission below without deducting the policy excess 20% which is illegal and allowed beyond the terms and conditions of the policy/contract.
With these grounds and others that will be urged at the time of arguments, requested to set aside the order of the Commission below and to dismiss the complaint.
8. Heard the counsel for the appellant. There was no representation for Respondent No.1 on 17.02.2026 and as well as on 17.03.2026, as such matter is reserved for orders.
9. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order as passed by the District Commission suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with in any manner ? To what relief ?
10. POINT: The facts not in dispute are that the complainant availed finance from opposite party No.1 and Opposite party No. 2 has issued sheep insurance policy for sheep with Tag No.38101 to 38170 and Tag No. 22391 to 22490. The policy bearing No.0506004718P111509276 was valid from 03.12.2018 to 02.12.2019. Endorsement policy was from 12.09.2019 to 02.12.2019 for sheep with Tag No.'s 1722 to 1792.
611. It is the complainant's case that on the night of 12.10.2019 village dogs attacked his sheep and 23 sheep died. He claims that he immediately informed the veterinary doctor who provided first aid treatment to the wounded animals. The Veterinary Asst. surgeon conducted the autopsy on the 23 dead sheep and gave his report. He informed the opposite parties No.1 & 2 over the phone and thereafter filed a claim petition vide No. 0506004719C050075001 with the opposite party No.2 attaching all the necessary documents.
12. Perusal of the record discloses Ex.A3 wherein the Veterinary Assistant surgeon has certified that sheep bearing Tag No's. 1766; 1757; 1743; 1749; 1774; 1748; 1771; 1772; 1768; 1752; 1794; 1758; 1745; 1756; 1737; 1736; 1760; 1792; 1776; 1769; 1739; 1775 and 1747 covered under the subject policy, died due to dog bite on 12.10.2019. The market value of the dead animals is assessed at Rs.2,00,000/-. The claim was forwarded by opposite party No.1 SBI, Nalgonda as evidenced vide Ex.A4. In this official communication dated 28.10.2019 - the opposite party No.1 bank has also stated that necessary copies are enclosed for claim settlement. The opposite party No.1 bank has addressed another letter to opposite party No.2 - dated 04.11.2019 vide Ex.A5, which reads as follows:-
"We would like to inform you that Shri Bolleboina Veeraswamy, S/o B.Doodaiah, loanee of live stock (sheep) has purchased by availing bank loan. On 12.10.2019 monning he has informed me over phone regarding death of 25 life stock by dog bite.
Sri G.Srinivas, Enquiry Officer from your office has visited our branch on 04.11.2019 for enquiry of the incident.
This is for your information."7
13. After receiving the claim from opposite party No.1, the opposite party No.2 has repudiated the same vide Ex.A1 - dated 24.12.2019 due to violation of policy condition No.8 which is reproduced for ready reference:-
"On the death of any animal hereby insured shall, give immediate notice thereof to the Company (at the office which has issued the policy; and shall give the Company on opportunity of inspecting carcass until at least the expiration of twenty four hours after such notice shall have been received by the Company".
14. The complainant has approached the veterinary doctor in good faith and the fundamental requirement of identifications in livestock is also proved by the Veterinary Asst. Surgeon. The identification was intact and there is no breach of identification. The cause of death and identity of the animals are conclusively proven by way of veterinary surgeon's death certificate and ear tag identification.
15. The ear tag is available and matches the policy, the identity is established and the veterinarian's report verifying the cause of death is considered as substantial proof of loss even if the inspection of the carcass by the insurer was not done. The denial of claim on a delay in intimation is also not correct. The complainant informed both the opposite parties immediately and the opposite party No.1 has forwarded the claim form with necessary copies on 28.10.2019 i.e. within 16 days of occurrence of incident. This further establishes the fact that the complainant did inform the opposite parties soon after the occurrence of incident on 12.10.2019 and the opposite party No.2 did not respond till 04.11.2019 as evidenced vide Ex.A5. For the delay of their enquiry officer - Mr.Srinivas, the opposite party No.2 has unfairly repudiated a genuine claim and further contend that they are willing and liable to pay the sum assured value of Rs.6,000/- for each sheep, but the complainant is claiming an exorbitant 8 amount of Rs.8,000/- per sheep. They also contend that the complainant is to be reimbursed only for 23 dead sheep as Tag No.1794 was not covered in the policy.
16. The policy is filed vide Ex.B1. It is a Micro Insurance product sheep Insurance Policy and total sum insured is Rs.10,00,000/- for sheep with tag numbers 22391 to 22490 and 38101 to 38170 i.e. for 99+69, a total of 168 sheep; Rs.10,00,000÷168 =Rs.5,952/-. Each animal was thus insured for a sum of Rs.5,952/- only. The District Commission has given the tag No.'s of 23 dead animal as covered under the policy but the opposite party No.2 counsel pointed out that they are liable to pay only for 22 dead sheep as one sheep alone is not covered under the policy. This denial does not stand to reason as the opposite parties have not repudiated the claim based on the tag numbers as submitted by the veterinary surgeon. Their only ground for repudiation is that they were not intimated in time and that aspect has been dealt with in detail in our discussions.
17. Thus when the complainant has not violated the policy terms, the insurance Company cannot deduct 20% towards policy excess and for having rejected a genuine claim, despite having strong evidence of death of the animals and being informed in time, the opposite party No.2 must compensate the complainant for the excessive delay caused by their deficiency in service and negligence. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we find no requirement to interfere with the impugned order.
18. In the result, the appeal is dismissed without costs by confirming the impugned order, dated 25.01.2022 in CC 13/2020 passed by the District Consumer Commission, Warangal.
The Respondent/Complainant is at liberty to withdraw the amount 9 deposited by appellant/Opposite Party No.2 to the credit of this appeal along with accrued interest thereon, towards part satisfaction of the decretal amount after the lapse of appeal time.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer on the System; corrected by me and pronounced by us in the Open Court on this the 23rd day of April' 2026.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER-NJ MEMBER-NJ
Dt: 23.04.2026
AD*