State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
New India Assurance Company Limited vs Mahavir Singh on 17 November, 2008
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRA DUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 366 / 2007
Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited
New Tehri through Divisional Office
The New India Assurance Company Limited, Astley Hall
Dehradun
......Appellant / Opposite Party No. 2
Versus
1. Sh. Mahavir Singh S/o Sh. Karan Singh
R/o Village Quainlagi, Patti Juwa
Udaipur, Tehsil and District Tehri Garhwal
.....Respondent No. 1 / Complainant
2. Ganga Yamuna Gramin Bank
Thangdhar Branch (Jadipani)
Tehsil and District Tehri Garhwal
through its Branch Manager
.....Respondent No. 2 / Opposite Party No. 1
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 374 / 2007
Ganga Yamuna Gramin Bank (Now Uttaranchal Gramin Bank)
Branch Thangedhar (Jadipani)
Tehsil and District Tehri Garhwal
through Branch Manager, Main Branch Head Office, Dehradun
......Appellant / Opposite Party No. 1
Versus
1. Sh. Mahavir Singh S/o Sh. Karan Singh
R/o Village Quainlagi, Patti Juwa
Udaipur, Tehsil and District Tehri Garhwal
.....Respondent No. 1 / Complainant
2. The New India Assurance Company Limited
Branch A-34, Model House
New Tehri, District Tehri Garhwal
through its Branch Manager
.....Respondent No. 2 / Opposite Party No. 2
Sh. M.N. Mishra, Learned Counsel for The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Sh. Virendra Singh Kathait, Learned Counsel for Complainant
Sh. Suresh Chandra, Learned Counsel for Ganga Yamuna Gramin Bank
2
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Irshad Hussain, President
C.C. Pant, Member
Smt. Kusum Lata Sharma, Member
Dated: 17/11/2008
ORDER
(Per: C.C. Pant, Member):
These two appeals have been filed against the order dated 06.10.2007 passed by the District Forum, Tehri Garhwal in consumer complaint No. 37 / 2006. First Appeal No. 366 / 2007 has been filed by The New India Assurance Company Limited and First Appeal No. 374 / 2007 has been filed by Ganga Yamuna Gramin Bank, who were the opposite parties in the consumer complaint. Vide the impugned order, the District Forum has directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant against insurance claim;
Rs. 1,000/- as cost and Rs. 1,000/- as special compensation, within one month from the date of the order, either jointly or severally, failing which, the amount was directed to carry interest @8% p.a. Since both the appeals arise out of the same order, both the appeals are being decided by this common order.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant Sh. Mahavir Singh had purchased two mules for sum of Rs. 60,000/- to earn his livelihood. As stated by the complainant, he had taken a loan of Rs. 50,000/- from Ganga Yamuna Gramin Bank (for short "bank")
- opposite party No. 1 and got the mules insured with The New India Assurance Company Limited (for short "insurer") - opposite party No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- each for the period from 08.03.2006 to 07.03.2007. The insured animals were tagged and were allotted tag Nos. 451006/10299 and 451006/10643. One of these mules, bearing tag No. 451006/10643, died on 18.04.2006 after a short illness. The complainant got the Panchnama signed by the members of the 3 region's Panchayat and other local people in respect of the death of the animal and intimated the bank immediately. On receiving the claim form, the complainant submitted the claim on account of death of the mule along with all the required documents and the ear tag. However, the insurer repudiated the claim. Upon this, a consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum, Tehri Garhwal, which was allowed by the District Forum vide the impugned order in the above terms. Aggrieved by the order, the insurer and the bank have filed these appeals.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
4. The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the insurer on the following grounds:
(i) Tag was not available in the ear of the animal at the time of its death.
(ii) As per surveyor's report, death of the animal is not confirmed.
(iii) There is difference in tag number, as reported by the bank and as intimated by the complainant / policy holder.
(iv) As per the statement of the policy holder's wife and other villagers, the animal's ear was not tagged.
5. The insurer has carved out the above grounds for the repudiation of the claim from the investigator's report, which is based on the bank's report and statements given by the policy holder's wife and other villagers. So far as the bank's report is concerned, it is to be seen as wherefrom the bank had provided the information in the format prescribed by the insurer. The complainant in his letter 4 addressed to the bank (Paper No. 37 of the record of First Appeal No. 374 / 2007), has very clearly stated that his mule bearing tag No. 10643 had died on 18.04.2006. When the bank had this information in writing, then how could the bank say that the animal had died on 16.04.2000 as stated by the complainant and the dead animal's tag number was 10299? Certainly, either it was due to some clerical error or the bank had played some mischief with the complainant, who is a person falling under the category of "Below Poverty Line" and appears to be not well literate.
6. The tag number and the other description of the dead animal has been confirmed by the Veterinary Officer, who had conducted the postmortem, but his report, which is more authentic, is being ignored or being doubted on the basis of the statements given by the policy holder's wife and other villagers. The role of this Commission is not to confine itself within the legal framework and technicalities of the case, but it is much more for achieving its aim in redressing the grievances of the consumers. One can easily understand that the persons like the complainant, who is not well literate, living under poverty line, keeping mules for his livelihood, has no concern for regular reading and writing, are leading a barbarous life and such people generally make an error in respect of the date and day etc., if they are asked for such date and day after a lapse of time from the occurrence of the event. Not only such people, who live in remote villages, but other literate ones also, if they are out of the profession or habit of regular reading or writing for quite sometime, they also can not respond spontaneously in respect of such question and may make an error. Therefore, we are of the view that it is not just to repudiate the complainant's claim on the basis of such inconsistencies.
57. Regarding the tagging of the animal, the insurer and the bank should not blame the complainant. It is their duty to tag the animal properly for the safeguard of their revenue. If the policy holder's wife says that the other mule also was not tagged, then it shows the procedural lapses of the bank's and the insurance company's working in sanctioning the loan and in getting the animal insured. If the bank and the insurance company take the plea that the insured animal was tagged and the animal referred to by the wife of the complainant, was some other one, then they must find out the animal, which was tagged. Moreover, the insurer has wrongly stated in the repudiation letter that as per the investigator's report, death of the animal is not confirmed. The fact is that the investigator has expressed his suspicion on the death of the animal and on the ground of suspicion, the claim can not be repudiated.
8. For all these reasons, we find no force in the appeal of the insurer. However, we feel that the impugned order needs some modification in respect of the compensation awarded by the District Forum. As per the insurance policy (Paper No. 32 of the record of First Appeal No. 366 / 2007), each mule was insured for sum of Rs. 24,000/- and not Rs. 30,000/- as claimed by the complainant and the insurer is liable to indemnify the insured upto the extent of 80% of the insured sum in case of animal's death. Thus, the District Forum has erred in awarding a sum of Rs. 30,000/- on account of the death of the mule. The District Forum should have awarded sum of Rs. 19,200/- on account of the death of the mule. Similarly, there is no justification for awarding sum of Rs. 1,000/- as special compensation and this part of the order needs to be set aside.
9. Further, though we find that the bank has acted very irresponsibly in dealing the complainant's case and submitting its 6 report, it is the insurer, who is liable to pay the compensation to the complainant. Therefore, the bank is to be absolved from the liability to pay any compensation to the complainant and the appeal filed by the bank is fit to be allowed.
10. First Appeal No. 374 / 2007 is allowed and the impugned order dated 06.10.2007 is set aside against the bank and the bank is absolved of the liability to pay any compensation to the complainant. No order as to cost.
11. First Appeal No. 366 / 2007 is partly allowed. Impugned order dated 06.10.2007 of the District Forum is modified and the insurer is directed to pay sum of Rs. 19,200/- to the complainant and Rs. 1,000/- towards cost of litigation, as awarded by the District Forum. The insurer shall pay the above amount within one month, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled to interest @8% p.a. on the above amount from the date of filing of the complaint till payment. Cost of the appeal made easy.
12. Let the copy of the order be kept on the record of First Appeal No. 374 / 2007.
(SMT. KUSUM LATA SHARMA) (C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE IRSHAD HUSSAIN) Kawal