AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE second opposite party in O.P. No. 322/99 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pathanamthitta is the appellant. His grievance was that she availed a loan from the first opposite party Bank with which he purchased a cow; as per the scheme under which the loan was assailed the cow had to be insured with the second opposite party/appellant and accordingly the cow was insured with the opposite party and though the first premium of Rs. 930/- was duly drawn by the first opposite party and paid to the second opposite party, when the claim was made the claim was not settled in favour of the complainant. THE complainant alleged, same would constitute deficiency in service and, therefore, wanted direction. THE first opposite party admitted the said transaction and maintained that a D.D. of Rs. 930/- was forwarded to the second opposite party towards the premium. THE second opposite party on the either hand took the stand that no such D.D. was received by them and, therefore, the contract of insurance could not be taken to have come into force. Consequently the complainant is not eligible for any relief. THE complainant gave evidence as P.W. 1 and she had examined as P.W. 2, the Veterinary Surgeon. She produced Exts. P1 and P2. On the side of the opposite party D.W. 1 was examined and he produced Exts. Rl to R3. On a consideration of the same the District Forum found that there is a policy and, therefore, the claim had to be settled by the second opposite party and that the first opposite party will issue duplicate draft for Rs. 930/- towards the premium. It is the said direction that is under challenge in this appeal by the second opposite party.
IT is submitted by the learned Counsel, the very relief now granted since would show that as a matter of fact the premium was not credited in the accounts of the second opposite party it cannot be said that the policy has come into effect. He also maintained that the entrustment with P.W. 2 of the issuance policy, in such circumstance need not create right in favour of the complainant. The evidence of D.W. 1, the Manager of the first opposite party would demonstrate that as a matter of fact a D.D. was issued to the 2nd opposite party which is supported by R2, copy of the Despatch Register of the first opposite party. Naturally, therefore, there must be a corresponding debit entry in the account of the complainant as to the said amount. IT is the case of the second opposite party they are not in possession of the D.D. in support of the same. Ext. R3 copy of letter from the second opposite party to the first opposite party intimating that they are not in receipt of the D.D. was produced. Two important factors to be reckoned in this connection are; admittedly Ext. P2 policy for the transaction was entrusted with P.W. 2, the Veterinary Doctor, secondly he issued the same to the complainant. Now it cannot be said that the policy was not issued. So far as the complainant is concerned the amount stands debited in her account on the drawing of the D.D. in favour of the second opposite party. Having regard to the aforesaid sequence of events any default by any of them cannot reflect adversely on the interest of the complainant. As complainant has discharged all that is expected of her in that regard, we see nothing to interfere, appeal fails, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.