Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 340 (UTT)

DWARIKA PRASAD DOBHAL v. STATE BANK OF INDIA

2015-07-06

B.C.KANDPAL, D.K.TYAGI, VEENA SHARMA

body2015
ORDER : (Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President): This is complainant’s appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 22.11.2011 passed by the District Forum, Uttarkashi in consumer complaint No. 44 of 2008. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint against the opposite party No. 2 – insurance company and directed the insurance company to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant and Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation expenses together with interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint, i.e., 15.04.2008 till payment. However, being not satisfied with the relief awarded by the District Forum, the complainant has filed the present appeal for enhancement. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that in the month of September, 2004, the complainant had taken a loan of Rs. 60,000/- from opposite party No. 1 – State Bank of India under Pradhan Mantri Gram Swarojgar Yojna (PMRY) for purchase of mules and purchased one pair of mule from the loan amount. The said mules were got medically examined from the Veterinary Officer, Naitwar, District Uttarkashi. The said mules were allotted tag number and the same were got insured with the opposite party No. 2 – The New India Assurance Company Limited through bank for a period of three years w.e.f. 18.10.2004 for sum of Rs. 30,000/- each, but the insurance company insured the mules only for a period of one year, whereas the insurance was to be done for a period of three years. During the insurance period, the ear tag of one of the mules went missing, intimation whereof was given to the insurance company through bank and a request was made for retagging, which was duly done on 24.06.2006 and new tag No. NIA-UK/1423 was pierced in the ear of the said mule. It was alleged that the mule bearing tag No. NIA-UK/1423 died on 21.07.2007 due to fall. The complainant lodged the claim with the insurance company and completed all the formalities. The insurance company, however, repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that on the date of death, the mule was not insured and the insurance was only upto 17.10.2005. Thereafter, alleging deficiency in service, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Uttarkashi. 3. The insurance company, however, repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that on the date of death, the mule was not insured and the insurance was only upto 17.10.2005. Thereafter, alleging deficiency in service, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Uttarkashi. 3. The bank filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the mules were wrongly insured by the insurance company for a period of one year; that letters dated 02.02.2005 and 21.04.2005 were issued to the insurance company stating therein that the loan has been granted to the complainant under PMRY and, as such, his mules were to be insured for a period of three years; that the insurance company did not issue the new policy after making necessary and required correction; that the claim of the complainant was duly forwarded to the insurance company and that there is no deficiency in service on their part. 4. The insurance company filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the insurance was done for the period from 18.10.2004 to 17.10.2005; that the mules were not insured for a period of three years, but the same were insured for a period of one year; that the mule of the complainant had died beyond the period of insurance coverage; that the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated and that there is no deficiency in service on their part. 5. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 22.11.2011 in the above terms. Not satisfied with the order of the District Forum, the complainant has preferred the instant appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 7. At the outset, we may state here that the insurance company has not challenged the impugned order passed by the District Forum by way of preferring any appeal against the same. Thus, the insurance company has not challenged the finding recorded against it by the District Forum, on the basis of which, the District Forum has passed the impugned order against the insurance company. 8. Thus, the insurance company has not challenged the finding recorded against it by the District Forum, on the basis of which, the District Forum has passed the impugned order against the insurance company. 8. The only question involved in the present case is whether the mules of the complainant were to be insured for a period of three years or not and whether or not the insurance company has committed any wrong by insuring the mules for a period of one year only. 9. There is no dispute with regard to the death of the mule. There is also no dispute that the loan for purchase of the mules was granted / sanctioned to the complainant by the bank under PMRY. The bank has specifically stated in its written statement that since the loan was granted to the complainant under PMRY and hence as per the said scheme, his mules were to be insured for a period of three years. The bank has also stated that it had issued letters to the insurance company on 02.02.2005 and 21.04.2005 for insuring the mules for a period of three years and issuing new policy after making necessary correction, but no heed was paid by the insurance company. There is letter dated 29.08.2008 of the bank written to the complainant on record (Paper No. 33), wherein the bank has stated that the loan was granted to the complainant under PMRY and, as such, his mules were to be insured for a period of three years, but the same were wrongly insured by the insurance company for a period of one year and letters dated 02.02.2005 and 21.04.2005 have been issued to the insurance company for rectification of mistake. There is yet another letter dated 18.11.2011 written by the bank to the insurance company (Paper No. 34), wherein it has been stated that the premium of Rs. 3,888/- has been charged for a period of three years. 10. Thus, from above and also from the finding recorded by the District Forum, it is abundantly clear that the mules of the complainant were to be insured for a period of three years and the insurance company has committed mistake by insuring the same for a period of one year only and has also committed deficiency in service by repudiating the legitimate claim of the complainant. Had the mules been insured for a period of three years, the mule which had died on 21.07.2007, would have duly been covered under the policy because then the policy would have been effective till 17.10.2007. But since the mules were wrongly insured by the insurance company for a period of one year even after charging and realizing the premium for a period of three years, the insurance company is liable to pay the insured amount of the dead mule. When the District Forum had come to the conclusion that there has been total inaction on the part of the insurance company in not insuring the mules for a period of three years, which they ought to have done as the mules were purchased under the relevant scheme, the District Forum should have also directed the insurance company to pay the insured amount of the dead mule to the complainant. However, in view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant is also entitled to the insured amount of the dead mule amounting to Rs. 30,000/-. Since the District Forum has awarded interest @7% p.a., the award of Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation is not legally tenable and can not be maintained. The litigation expenses of Rs. 2,000/- awarded by the District Forum are perfectly justified. This way, the appeal is fit to be allowed and the order impugned passed by the District Forum is liable to be modified. 11. Appeal is allowed. Order impugned dated 22.11.2011 passed by the District Forum is modified and the respondent No. 2 – insurance company is directed to pay the insured amount of Rs. 30,000/- to the appellant – complainant together with interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint, i.e., 15.04.2008 till payment and Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation expenses, as awarded by the District Forum. However, the costs of the appeal is made easy.