Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 357 (UTT)

LEELA DEVI v. STATE BANK OF INDIA

2005-08-18

LUXMI SINGH, SURENDRA KUMAR

body2005
ORDER Mr. Surendra Kumar, Acting President—This is an appeal against the order dated 22.6.2004 passed by the District Forum, Uttarkashi whereby the complaint of the complainant was dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 25,000 by opposite party No. 1 under Women Group Loan Scheme for her self-employment. The first instalment of Rs. 12,500 was paid by the opposite party No. 1 on 15.3.2000 and the other instalment of Rs. 12,500 was paid on 28.7.2000. It is a alleged that she purchased two buffaloes from the amount of the loan and the buffaloes were examined by the veterinary doctor and tag No. NIA-99/0020 and 98-NIA-321902/5375 were affixed in the ears of the buffaloes. According to the terms of the loan, both the buffaloes were got insured by the complainant with the opposite party No. 2 through the opposite party No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 12,500 respectively for a period of 3 years on 25.3.2000 and 14.8.2000 and the amount of premium was paid from her account. 3. It is further said that on 9/10.8.2002 due to sudden flood, her Gaushala was washed away and the buffaloes of the complainant which were insured and tagged, died. Information was given to the opposite party No. 2 through opposite party No. 1 in time. She also informed the veterinary doctor regarding the death of the buffaloes and requested for post-mortem. On her request, the doctor came to the spot after 2-3 days and he certified the death of buffaloes due to flood and also certified the presence of tags in the ears of the buffaloes. No investigation was conducted by the opposite party No. 2. She was was not issued the claim form due to which she could not fill the claim form. The claim was repudiated without any reason. Therefore, she filed the complaint. 4. The opposite party No. 1, bank filed written statement and admitted the giving of loan to the complainant for purchase of buffaloes, affixing of tags after medical examination and also the insurance. The information regarding the flowing of buffaloes in the flood was given to them on 20.8.2002, which they sent to the Insurance Company along with their letter. There is no deficiency in their services. The complaint is liable to be dismissed against them. 5. The information regarding the flowing of buffaloes in the flood was given to them on 20.8.2002, which they sent to the Insurance Company along with their letter. There is no deficiency in their services. The complaint is liable to be dismissed against them. 5. The opposite party No. 2 Insurance Company filed written statement and admitted the grant of loan of Rs. 25,000 by the opposite party No. 1 for purchase of buffaloes, issue of tags and also admitted the insurance. It is said that on the one hand the complainant is saying that the buffaloes were flown away in the flood and their body could not be recovered and on the other hand the information to the veterinary doctor for post-mortem is contradictory. There is no proof of death of the buffaloes. It is further said that claim form was sent to the complainant after receipt of information regarding the death of the buffaloes but the claim form along with tags was not submitted by the complainant. The Surveyor did not certify the death of the buffaloes, therefore, the claim was repudiated. There is no deficiency in their services. 6. The parties filed their affidavits and other relevant documents in support of their allegations. The learned Forum after taking the evidence of the parties and hearing them dismissed the complaint, against which order the complainant has filed this appeal. 7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. The main dispute is regarding the death of the buffaloes. The Insurance Company mainly raised the point that the death of the buffaloes was not established in the alleged flood. The complainant in her complaint alleged that on 9/10.8.2002 her Goushala was flown due to flood and both her buffaloes died. Information was given to the bank and also the Insurance Company through bank. The letter of bank dated 20.8.2002 to the Insurance Company is available on record in which the officials of the Insurance Company made the endorsement “noted for investigation”. The Surveyor Shri Naveen Chandra Bhatt in his report dated 2.10.2002 mentioned the cause of death of buffaloes as flood. He has also given the particulars of buffaloes, their colour, the colour of tale, mark of identification etc. The Surveyor Shri Naveen Chandra Bhatt in his report dated 2.10.2002 mentioned the cause of death of buffaloes as flood. He has also given the particulars of buffaloes, their colour, the colour of tale, mark of identification etc. The Surveyor also made the inquiry from the bank, in which the bank alleged that they received the information regarding the death of the buffaloes on 20.8.2002. The statement of the complainant was also recorded by the Surveyor. The date of death of the buffaloes is mentioned as 10.8.2002. The case of death is flood. Regarding the tags, it is mentioned that it was given to the complainant. This statement was signed by the complainant in presence of Sh. Shivendra Singh and Sh. Kushal Singh and also by Dharam Singh. The Surveyor in his spot survey report mentioned that Sh. Dharam Singh said that the Goushala was on the edge of Ganga river which was flown due to flood on 10.8.2002. Sh. Dharam Singh also stated that in the Gaushala there were 20-22 goats of Sh. Bahadur Singh which also flown away. This report was signed by the former Pradhan of the village, Sh. Dharam Singh, Sh. Kushal Singh and Sh. Shivendra Singh. The Surveyor Sh. Naveen Chandra Bhatt has also filed a newspaper cutting of Amar Ujala that 10 animals were flown in the flood and there was also a news regarding death of 22 goats. 8. The Insurance Company in para 7 of its written statement said that due to non-submission of claim form, tags and fulfilling other relevant formalities, the claim of the complainant was not settled. In para 11, it is said that the complainant has made the wrong report in collusion with the Patwari. On which ground the Insurance Company challenged the report of the Patwari is not clear. In para 15, it is stated that the claim form was sent to the complainant. In para 17, it is said that in case of natural calamity, the inquiry is conducted by Revenue Officer and in case of any type of loss, record is maintained. The complainant could not prove the loss and during investigation the death of her buffaloes was not established. The Patwari certified the death of the buffaloes. There is no evidence available on record to disbelieve the report of the Patwari. 9. The complainant could not prove the loss and during investigation the death of her buffaloes was not established. The Patwari certified the death of the buffaloes. There is no evidence available on record to disbelieve the report of the Patwari. 9. The repudiation letter dated 31.3.2003 has been filed in which it is alleged that according to the terms and conditions of the policy, the claim form and ear-tag should have been submitted within 14-30 days but it has not been submitted till date, therefore the claim file is closed. It is surprising that when the Insurance Company did not issue the claim form, how the complainant can submit it after filing it along with all other relevant documents for the settlement of the claim. 10. In our view there is sufficient evidence on record to prove that the buffaloes of the complainant died due to flood and the said fact has also been admitted by the Surveyor in his report. The claim of the complainant was wrongly rejected. There is definitely deficiency in service of the Insurance Company in repudiating the claim of the complainant. The bank did not commit any deficiency in service. It gave the information regarding the death of the buffaloes to the Insurance Company immediately after receiving the same from the complainant. The complainant is entitled to the insured amount of Rs. 25,000 along with interest. Interest @ 6% shall be proper and adequate interest. The complainant shall get interest from the date of complaint before the learned Forum i.e., 25.6.2003. The learned Forum did not appreciate the facts of the case and the judgment passed by the learned Forum is not correct and is liable to be set aside. As such the appeal is fit to be allowed. ORDER The appeal is hereby allowed. The order under appeal dated 22.6.2004 is hereby quashed. The complaint is also allowed. The opposite party No. 2, Insurance Company is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000, insured amount to the complainant along with interest @ 6% from the date of complaint, i.e., 25.6.2003 till the date of actual payment. The appeal is hereby dismissed against the opposite party No. 1 bank. Costs of this appeal shall be easy. Appeal allowed.