HOSHIARPUR PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. vs RAJINDER SINGH

CHALLENGING order of District Forum, Hoshiarpur dated 18.7.1998, the appellant before us is the Hoshiarpur Primary Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd., Bassi Khawaju, Hoshiarpur, opposite party before the District Forum. As per order under challenge, the District Forum has accepted the complaint of Sh. Rajinder Singh son of Sh. Tarsem Singh and directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 18,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the complaint. 3. The contention raised by the complainant was that he availed a loan of Rs. 18,000/- from the opposite parties under the self-employment scheme to run a poultry farm. At the time of the payment of the first instalment of the loan, a sum of Rs. 1,050/- was deducted by the opposite parties towards charges of insurance of the business of the complainant. With the loan amount he purchased as many as 551 hens and 11 cocks on 12.11.1991 for his poultry farm. After two months, because of serious disease, more than 450 birds died. Post-mortem of the dead birds was got done from Veterinary Doctor. The complainant approached opposite party for the insured amount of the birds from them, but it was not paid. Therefore, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, Hoshiarpur and the opposite party took up the plea and tendered an affidavit of Sh. Balbir Singh, Sr. Field Officer with regard to the fact that enquiry made by him at village Khanpur Thiara on 16.10.1991 revealed that birds had not been purchased by the complainant. In the written reply, the opposite party took the plea that the birds were purchased by the complainant but were sold by him in the market. It was also contended in the written statement that when the complainant was required to give his consent for the insurance of the birds, he had expressed desire to have the birds insured at his own risk. Both the parties led their evidence on affidavits and documents. The District Forum held deficiency in rendering service and allowed the complaint as referred to above. Not satisfied with the order the opposite party is before us as appellant against the order of the District Forum. 3. We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records on the file. The following points are required to be considered in this case : (1) Whether there was negligence act on the part of the opposite party for not getting the birds insured which amounts to deficiency in rendering service ? (2) Whether refusal to pay claim by opposite party is legal ? (3) To how much compensation, if any, the complaint is entitled to.

Point No. 1 : 4. The loan was advanced by the opposite party to the complainant by way of instalments on different dates. He was asked to give his consent as per rules for insurance of the birds. At the time of release of the first instalment of the loan, a sum of Rs. 1,050/- was deducted by the opposite party towards charges of insurance of the business of the complainant. To us, it appears that this was done so to protect the interest of the opposite party more particularly when the expressed desire of the complainant to have the birds insured on his own risk and responsibility was not allowed to prevail. Receipt No. 91597 dated 15.7.1991 for Rs. 1,050/- for insurance is on record (Annexure B, page 15). This receipt has been issued by the Hoshiarpur Primary Co-op. Agriculture Development Bank Ltd., Hoshiarpur. As the Bank/opposite party had deducted a sum of Rs. 1,050/- from the loan amount towards insurance charges, it became its primary duty to get the insurance cover for the birds. This was not done so, which per se amounts to deficiency in rendering service. So held. Point No. 2 : 5. The opposite party has tendered an affidavit of Sh. Balbir Singh, Senior Field Officer, with regard to the fact that the enquiry made by him at Village Khanpur Thiara on 16.10.1991 revealed that the birds had not been purchased by the complainant. The opposite party has not placed on the record the Report of Sh. Balbir Singh. District Forum has rightly observed that the opposite party has not led any evidence to support its version. Rather in the written reply the opposite party has taken the plea that the birds were purchased by the complainant but were sold by him in the market. The relevant para No. 4 is reproduced below : "That in reply to para No. 4, it is submitted that the birds did not die. It is wrong that 450 birds died. In fact, the complainant might have sold the said birds in the market, if purchased and must have received the price of the same and when the time has come to return the loan amount, he is taking false pleas and the present complaint has been filed only to create hurdles in affecting the recovery of the loan amount by the Bank. There is no identification that those alleged dead birds are the same birds, which were purchased by the complainant from the loan amount provided by the respondent. The complainant intends to get double benefit by earning twice. The alleged post-mortem report is manipulated and false and without any notice to the respondent. The birds usually ready for marketing after 40 days."

If above admission of the opposite party is read with affidavit of Sh. Balbir Singh, Sr. Field Officer, with regard to the fact that the enquiry revealed that birds had not been purchased, it falsifies the affidavit also. 7. The complainant in support of his version has filed an affidavit of Dr. Gurjit Singh, Veterinary Doctor, Post-mortem Certificates and other receipts. Post-mortem of the dead birds was conducted by Dr. Gurjit Singh and the certificate was issued on 17.11.1994. The details of the particulars of the birds on which the post-mortem was conducted has been incorporated in the post-mortem certificates. The complainant has also filed his own affidavit by way of evidence. An affidavit of Sh. Piara Singh son of Sh. Sadhu Singh resident of Village Khanpur Thiara testifying that he had been seeing the poultry birds. The opposite party appears to have taken the plea that birds had not been purchased to defeat the cause of the complainant and to conceal the act of negligence for not getting the insurance cover for the birds well in time, when a sum of Rs. 1,050/- was deducted from the loan amount by the opposite party to make payment of the insurance charges of the birds. 8. From the above evidence, we are of the considered view that no importance can be attached to the report of Sh. Balbir Singh, Sr. Field Officer, as it has not been supported by any evidence much less cogent that the complainant had not purchased the birds. We hold that the refusal to pay claim by the opposite party as illegal as not based on any material, as it is not sustainable in the eyes of law. So held. Point 3 : 9. The complainant has led the evidence to the satisfaction of the District Forum, we are convinced that the District Forum has rightly assessed the loss, which can well be accepted for the purposes of disposing of this appeal, the complainant is, therefore, held entitled to Rs. 18,000/-. 10. The present is, therefore, a case of deficiency in rendering service on the part of the opposite party - the Hoshiarpur Primary Co-op. Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. in not getting the insurance cover for the birds of the poultry farm of the complainant. 11. For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in the appeal and it is dismissed. Order of the District Forum is affirmed, the complainant would also be entitled to costs of litigation in this Court, which are assessed at Rs. 1,000/-. Order of stay dated 10.9.1998 in this case is hereby vacated. Appeal dismissed with costs