State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd., By Its ... vs Premalata Behera, on 20 July, 2023
1
STATE CONSIJMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
ODISTIA. CTJTTACK
FIITST APPEAL I\{O. 3l 1 of 20ll
(Frorn an order clarecJ 03"05"2011 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cuttack in
Consunrer Complaint No. 6912010)
1) M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd,
represented through its Offi cer-in-Charge.
Orissa Legal Clell,Cantonment Road,
Cuttack,
.. Appellants.
VersLls-
1. Prernalata Behera Vill - I{agacli, P.S.
-Banki, Dist. - Cuttack.
2. Veterinary Asst. Surgeon,At. - Banki, Dist
- Cuttack.
Respondents.
Counsel for the Appellant- Sri N.l( Mishra,
Sri Deepak Kumar Pani.
Sri Ajay Kumar I{oy,
Sri Aditya Mishra,
Sri Nitish Kumar Mishra.
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 - Sri Manas Ranjan Dhal,
Sri S.K. Kanungo.
Counsel flor the Respondent No.2- None.
I
2
PRESENT:- Sri D.K. Mohapatra, Member.
Sri H.K Mohanfyo Member.
DATE OF HEARING - 14.03. 2023
DATE, OF OITDER- -20.07.2023
ORT) [,R
I - The factual rnatrix of the complaint is that Complainant had
insured her two cows with the Opp. Party No. | &. 2 under Live Stock Insurance Pilot Scheme introduced by Govt. of India for three years from l6-03-2007 to 15-03-2010. She had paicl premium Rs. 868/- @ Rr. 4341- for each cow to the Opp. Parly No. 1 &. 2.'l'he cattle tag number of the said cows were 10374 arrrl 70i75.'flrcre was llood in lhe river Nlahanacli on 20- 09-2008 and these two cows ol' the Cornplainant while grazing on the ground were washed away in the flood and the dead body could not be recovered. The Complainant then submitted her insurance claim before the Opp. Parly No. 2 claiming the insured amount of Rs. 14,0001- for each cow. The Insurance Company asked the Complainant to furnish cerlain documents ancl the Con-rplainant cornplied the same. But the Opp. Parties repudiated the claim of the Corrplainant without any valid ground. So the Complainant alleging deficiency in service filed the complaint case before District Consumer Forum/Commission, Cuttack against the Opp. Parlies \1 \ .,' bearing C.C. No. 6912010 paying for compensation of Rs. 51,7361- for loss caused to her.
') On receipt of the notice the Opp. Party No. I & 2 appeared belore learned fbrum below and llled the written version denying the allegations made in the con-rplaint petition and stating that the Veterinary Asst. Surgeon, Banki conducted an inquiry and submitted a report stating thcrcin that the cows of the Complainant were not washed away due to f'lood and basing on such repott and the terms and conditions of Insurance Policy the Opp. Party Insurance Cornpany has rightly repudiated the clairn of the complainant. The sole ground on whioh the clairn of the cornplainant was repudiated is the reporl of the Veterinary Asst. Surgeon. The Veterinary Asst. Surgeon, Banki has mentioned in his reporl that the cows of the Complainant were washed away due to super flood on 20-09-2008 but subsequently the Veterinary Asst. Surgeon at a later date has given another report that on subsequenl verification and spot visit it was found that the cows bearing tag Nos. 70374 and 10375 of Premalata Behera were not washed away due to llood. The llrst reporl of the VAS that the cows were washed away by flood on 20-09-2008 was given on 11-11-2008 and the subsequent reporl was given on i6-11-2008 no reason was given why the :$ 4 V.A.S. submitted the second reporl on 16-11-2008 dcnying thc claim of the Complainant, on the basis of which the Insurance Company has repudiated the claim of the Complainant.
3- on receipt of the notice the opp. Parly No.3 appeared before learned fbrurn belorv and llled written version stating that the Complainant had approached to the V.A.S., Banki to flurnisl-r a false and fabricated reporl that her cows have been lost in floocl. The V.A.S. clisagreed to such an illcgal proposal. Irr facl, Lliq village, wlriuh the CornplainanL claimecl to be flood affected village, is not actually such. The list of villages affectecl inflood-2008 under Banki does not cover the aforesaid village. Hence, the complaint of the Complainant is liable to be disrnissed. 4- After hearing tl-re case learned Irorum below passed the impugned order directing tlie Opp. Parlies particularly Opp. Parties I &.2 to pay Rs. 28,0001- i.e. the inSured amount for two cows to the Complainant together with compensation of Rs. 20001- and cost of litigation of Rs. 1000/- furll-rer directingithe payrnents are to be made within one month from the date of the order failing which penal interest @ 12% per annum shall be paid by the Opp. Parties 1 &. 2 to the Complainant from the date of filing of the case i.e tiom 27-03-2010 till final payrnent is made. s
-_i 5- Challenging the in"rpugned order of D.C.D.R.C. Cuttack, the aggrieved O.P.s/Appellants have filed this appeal before this Commission. 6- Dr-rring the course of hearing counsel for appellants submitted that, the district lbrun-r while considering a complaint has to settle the consumer dispute on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the respective parlies and Consurrer Forum does not have power under C.P Act 1986 to clcciclc thc casc utt tltc dispr-rtetl cluestiotts of fac-ts rvhich is thc absolute domain of the Civil Courls. In the instant case, the complainantl respondent has raised her claim as her cows were washed away in the high flood in 2008 whereby her village was seriously affected. Although the case of the Complainant was recornrnended by the Panchayat Samiti Member, the same was properly investigatecl by the Respondent No. 2, who also visited tl-re spot and verifiecl the clocurnents connected with the claim. As per his report, the clairn was found to be erroneous and false since the claimed cows were not washed away due to flood. On the basis of such cerlificate given by the competent public authority. Itesponclent No. 2, the Insurance claim was repudiate<l as per the schcrnc.
I 7- Counsel of Appellant furthcr subrnitted that the competent 6 authority prepared a Iist of GP/villages afl-ected in Flood-2008 under the Banki Sub-Division, the narne of Ragadi Grarn Panchayat/Village does not find place in the said list. At no point of tin-re any objection has been raised by any quarter whatsoever much less by the Panchayat Samit Membeq who wrote the letter under dispute to the insurance Cornpany. Similarly another list of beneficiaries, who lost I-ive Stock during Food 2008 of Banki Sub- Division was prepared by a tearn o1' Govt. Officials including the Respondent No.2. 'l-he narne o1'the Cornplarinant/Respondent No. I has not been included in the said list, which also remained unchallenged, the aforesaid lists and reports were prepared after spot verification and also counter signecl by responsible Govt. Servant which could not have been ignored withoLrt suf-ficicnt rcason. fhe Veterinary Asst. Surgeon is a responsible Public Servant and also cornpetent to issue cerlificates as per the Scheme. The Panchayat Sarniti Mernber is not competent to give any reporl as per the Scherne. 'l-he I)anchayat Sanriti Member is not competent to give any reporl as per the Schc'me for which no reliance could have been placed on his letter. In such view of the rnatter, no deficiency in service can be attributed to the appellant Company.
'$ 8- The Counsel fbr the Complainant/Respondent No.1 filed an l Affidavit on dt. 12.12.2022 stating that due to heavy flood in river Mahanadi on 20.9.2008, two cattles of the cornplainant were washed away when the watcher of the cattles narned Agadhu Behera grazing the cows of the complainant. The complainant with his sincer effect tried to find out/ search the cows, but the same was in vain. The complainant approached before the Opp. Parly No.2 and stated the difficulties regarding her rnissing of the cows in the river Mahanacli during heavy flood and wanted to get back his insurance money since 20.9.2008, but the authority concerned has not considered his approach. It is lurrher stated that the Block Veterinary Officer, Damapada Banki-Il, Cuttack has certifled that one CBJ having ear Tag No.7A374 aged 5 years 6 months with value of Rs.14,0001- and another ear Tag No.70375 aged 6 years 6 months with value of Rs.14,0001- of the owner Prernalata Behera, W/o. Krushna Chandra Behera (the present respondent) vicle Policy No.l63 10447069470000223, washed away due to super flood during 20.09.20{)8, which was repofted to National Insurance Co.Ltd.(present Appellant ) by Dr. N.K.Charnpathy, Ex- VAS, Banki. 9- We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties and perused the DFR, appeal ffremo and written notes of submission ,Ir filed on behalf of the Parlies.
8
10- We found fiorn the record (DFR) that the Insurance Company has repr-rdiated the clairn of cornplaint on the basis of the second report dt. 16-11-2008 furnished by the Veterinary Asst. Surgeon, Banki, Cuttack cefiifying that "as subsequent verification & spot visit, it was found that the cow bearing tag No 703 74 ofPremalata Behera.was not washed away due to flood" just below to the report dt. 11-11-2008 furnished by the same Veterinary Asst. Surgeon certilifying that the cows were washed away during 2Oth Sep-''1. 2008. hr the othc'r hand we find tlie Cor-rnsel of RcsporrdeLrt/Complainant has lllcd tht-'alficlat,it on l2- l2-2l2|enclosing the xcrox copics of post rrortcrn rcporl ancl veterir-rary cerlificate (xerox copy of cerlified copy) issued by Velerinary Asst. Surgeon Banki, Cuttack certifying that "washed away due to super flood during 20th Sept. 2008". In the said veterinary cerlificate the Veterinary Asst. Surgeon has not furnished any ceftificate on 16-ll-2008. I'ur1hc'r from post mortem repoft it is found that one Veterinary Ofl-icer, Bar-rl<i has cerlif-red on 23-06-2022 shows in the body of post moftem reporl that one CflJ cow, having ear tag No 70314 aged about 5 yrs 6 months with value of lts. l4,O00l- of owner Premalata Behera AtlPo. Tagadi, Dist- Cuttack, washed away due to super flood during 20-09- 2008 which was reported to National Insurance Company by Dr. M.K. Charnpathy eX, VAS Banl<i. To asceftain the true fact on i8-11-2022 this ,'\]' i_- '' 9 Commission directed the Respondent No. 2 to file an affidavit stating whether cows of Respondent No. i/Complainant has been washed away in flood or not. In pursuance to our direction the Respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit on 11 -01-2023 stating that on 11-11-2008 the then Veterinary Asst. Surgeon Dr. Narendra Kumar Champaty had submitted the insurance claim form indicating "cows washed away due to super flood during 20th September 2008, which also found in the official file of Veterinary Dispensary, Banki. But the reporl shown to him issued by same Dr. Nnrr:nclra Krrmtrr Charnpaty clt 16.11.2008 mentioning "on subseqttcnt verificalion and spot visit it was found that the cows bearing thc tag No. 70374 of Premlata Behera was not washed away due to flood" which was not found in their official record. He joined at Veterinary Dispensary, Banki on 19.08.2022 only.
11- We find, the VAS has filed an Affidavit on 11-01-2023 0n the basis of official record available in the offlrce clearly stating that the cows were washed away due to super flood during 20.9.2008 . In the official record the then Veterinary Asst. Surgeon has not furnished any report on 16- I 1-2008, as such it is clear from record that manipulations has been made in the Veterinary Cerlificate filed before the Insurance Company for which the Insurance Company has repudiated the claim of the Complainant. 10 12- We find the second reporl dt. I 6- I 1-2008 furnished by the VAS on the veterinary cerlil'rcatc is a suspicious one and we are unable to accept the subsequent report dt. l6-11-2008 as the sarre is not available in official record. Further, we llnd tirat Panchayat Sarniti Member of the said village has also given cerlificate certifying that:-
" I Sri Satyanarayan l3ehera, Vill- Itagadi, I'S Banki, Dist- Cuttck. is the Member ol'thc Ragadi Gram Panchayat I know Mrs. Prernalata Behera, W/o. I(n-rshna Chandra Behera, Vill-Ragadi, PS-Banki, Dist-Cuttack. Due to heavy llood during 20.09.2008 the cows are washed away while grazing. -lwo.larsi cow of Itecl C-'olour."
13- Taking in to consideration the affidavit dt. 11-01 -2023 filed by one Jagadish Kinkar Chancl Respondent No. 2 (on the basis of official record) and the certificate issued by one Satyanarayan Behera Panchayat Sarniti Member, Ragadi Grarn Panchayat clt. 1l-ll-2008 we have no hesitation to hold that the learnecl Irorur-r'r belorv has rightly passed the irnpugned order holding that the Insurance Cor-npany was not justified in repudiating the clairn of the Cornplainant basing upon the incredible reporl of VAS.
11We find no inf-rrmity in the impugned order.
The Appeal stands no merit.
Accordingly, the appeal is clisrnissed.
Send back the DFR.
l&, /
( H.K.Mohanty) ro.r.ffim"r
(Member) (Member)