State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Sh. Pitamber Singh on 11 May, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRA DUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 387 / 2007
The New India Assurance Company Limited
Uttarkashi through Senior Divisional Manager
The New India Assurance Company Limited
Astley Hall, Dehradun
......Appellant / Opposite Party No. 1
Versus
1. Sh. Pitamber Singh S/o Sh. Padam Singh
R/o Village Udrei, Patti Gazna
Tehsil Dunda, District Uttarkashi
......Respondent No. 1 / Complainant
2. Uttarkashi District Sahkari Bank Ltd.
Branch Raimear, District Uttarkashi
through Branch Manager
......Respondent No. 2 / Opposite Party No. 2
Sh. Rajesh Kumar Devliyal, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. B.S. Chauhan, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1
None for Respondent No. 2
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Irshad Hussain, President
Smt. Kusum Lata Sharma, Member
Dated: 11/05/2010
ORDER
(Per: Justice Irshad Hussain, President):
This is insurer's appeal against the order dated 25.10.2007 passed by the District Forum, Uttarkashi, whereby the consumer complaint No. 37 of 2006 was allowed and the complainant was held entitled to compensation of Rs. 20,000/-, the assured sum under the cattle insurance policy with interest @7% p.a. we.f. 13.10.2005 and Rs. 1,500/- as litigation expenses. The liability to pay the amount was held to be that of the bank - opposite party No. 2, but the insurance company, in the first instance, was directed to pay the awarded sum to 2 the complainant and thereafter was given an option to realize the amount paid from the bank.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant - insurance company and the complainant - respondent No. 1. None appeared on behalf of bank - respondent No. 2. Having considered the submissions in the light of the facts, circumstances and legal aspects of the case, we may state at the outset that this appeal is fit to be allowed and the order impugned is liable to be modified, so that the insurance company may be exonerated from paying any amount of compensation etc. to the complainant and that the liability to pay the awarded sum to the complainant remain on the bank - respondent No. 2.
3. The reasons for the aforesaid decision are that in terms of the policy of insurance, which commenced from 07.10.2005 and the horse, which had been purchased by taking loan from the bank having died within 15 days of the issuance of the policy of insurance, the insurance company, on account of the terms and conditions of the cattle insurance policy, was absolved from any liability to pay compensation or the assured sum to the complainant. The similar view has rightly been taken by the District Forum. The horse was purchased on 24.08.2005 after taking loan from the bank - respondent No. 2 and on that very day, the premium for the insurance coverage of the purchased horse was deducted by the bank. Despite this, the bank had the policy of insurance issued after a lapse of more than a month on 07.10.2005 and under the terms of the policy of insurance, the horse having died within 15 days of the commencement of the policy, the liability to pay the assured sum stand fastened on the bank on account of said deficiency in service made by it. The similar view having been having been taken by the District Forum, there was no 3 justification in giving a direction that in the first instance, the insurance company shall pay the amount of compensation to the complainant and then shall have an option to realize the amount from the bank. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the order impugned, therefore, can not legally be maintained. We have taken a similar view in First Appeal No. 07 of 2008; Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Kamli Devi and another, decided on 08.01.2010.
4. In view of above, the appeal succeed and is hereby allowed. Order impugned dated 25.10.2007 of the District Forum in so far as the direction to pay the amount of compensation to the complainant in the first instance by the insurance company and giving it an option to realize the amount thereafter from the bank - respondent No. 2, is set aside and consumer complaint No. 37 of 2006 is dismissed against the appellant - insurance company. The respondent No. 2 - bank is directed to pay the amount of compensation etc. awarded by the District Forum to the complainant. Costs of the appeal made easy.
(SMT. KUSUM LATA SHARMA) (JUSTICE IRSHAD HUSSAIN) K