SRI LAXMAN MOHANTY vs BRANCH MANAGER, BALASORE GRAMYA BANK

THE final order passed by the District Forum, Balasore in C.D. Case No. 162 of 1992 has been challenged in this appeal. THE complainant in the said case is the appellant. THE complainant had purchased one she-buffalo on 9.5.88 taking the loan of Rs. 4,500/from the Gramya Bank, Nijampur Branch and had insured the same with the present respondent No. 2 for a period of three years with effect from 9.5.88. THE Ear Tag No. DBBC/6086 was attached to that she-buffalo. It is claimed that the said she-buffalo died on 24.11.90 and the same was examined by the Veterinary Asst. Surgeon who opined that the death of the she buffalo was due to snake bite. THE complainant reported the matter to the Bank (opposite party No. 1 before the District Forum) on the same date and requested the Bank to take appropriate action. It is also urged that the Bank informed the matter to the Insurance Company. THE Bank also informed the complainant that the claim had been lodged with the Insurance Company after submitting all necessary documents including post-mortem report and the ear tag alongwith the letter dated 3.12.90. In spite of repeated demands by the complainant, the claim having not been settled by the Insurance Company, he filed the aforesaid case before the District Forum for redressal.

THE Bank and the Insurance Company (opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 respectively) before the District Forum filed their separate versions and resisted the claim of the complainant. THE stand of the Bank is also that they have no responsibility for making good the loss to the complainant in as much as after purchase of the she-buffalo and on receipt of the information of the death of the she-buffalo, they had done their work intimating the Insurance Company and sending all the required documents for settlement of the claim of the complainant. THE stand of the Insurance Company was that because no intimation had been given to the Insurance Company immediately after the death of the she buffalo pursuant to the condition No. 7 of the Cattle Policy, the Insurance Company was deprived of the verification of the claim. A further plea was taken that though they had received the letter from the opposite party No. 1 with the live stock claim form alongwith some documents in respect of the deceased she-buffalo, the eartag which was absolutely necessary for settlement of the claim was not sent to the Insurance Company. THEy have alleged that by a communication dated 2.1.91, the Bank was informed that the ear tag was not received by the Insurance Company which was erroneously mentioned by their en-dosed letter dated 3.12.90. THEy also requested the Bank to submit the tag at an early date to enable the Insurance Company for settlement of the claim. THErefore, the Insurance Company justified the repudiation of the claim on the aforesaid points. The District Forum after hearing both parties and examining the papers, dismissed the claim of the complainant on the ground that necessary documents were not furnished to the Insurance Company for settlement of the claim and, therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be Held to be deficient in service. The District Forum referred to a decision of the National Commission reported in II (1992) CPJ 457 (NC)=1992 (2) CPR Page 448, (M/s. Hindusthan Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Others).

The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant invited our attention to the Live Stock Inspector Certificate which has been marked as Ext. 1 before the District Forum. The said certificate incorporates the declaration written in Oriya language saying that in the event the insured goat, buffalo etc. dies in any disease or accident, then the same should be immediately informed to the Bank or to the Insurance Company (emphasis supplied). On the aforesaid endorsement in the certificate, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant, that admittedly the complainant had informed the Bank the date of death of the she-buffalo which the Bank had acknowledged. It is, therefore, contended that it is sufficient compliance of Condition No. 7 inasmuch as the information was to be given to the Bank or to the Insurance Company at the option of the complainant. The aforesaid submission in our opinion is acceptable.

WE would, therefore, conclude that there was no lapse on the part of the complainant in giving the information of death of she-buffalo which he gave to the Bank and intimation to the Bank in the aforesaid circumstances is intimation to the Insurance Company also. It becomes apparent from the records produced before the District Forum that the Bank on receipt of the aforesaid information and necessary documents including post-mortem report and ear tags forwarded the same to the Insurance Company alongwith the letter dated 3.12.90. The same letter appears to have been received by the Insurance Company before 2.1.91. By the letter dated 2.1.91, the Insurance Company wrote back to the Bank that they have not received any ear tag alongwith the claim form whereas the Bank has mentioned in their letter dated 3.12.90 that the ear tag was enclosed with the letter. The Insurance Company also requested the Bank to submit the ear tag at an early date to enable them to settle the claim. Mr. Das appearing for the Insurance Company before us emphatically asserted that soon after receipt of the aforesaid letter dated 3.l2.90, the Insurance Company has informed the Bank that the ear tag was not one of the enclosures alongwith the letter to the Bank and, therefore, the Insurance Company was not at all at fault in settling the claim. It is, therefore, apparent on the aforesaid facts that the complainant had submitted the ear tag before the Bank which ultimately did not reach the Insurance Company either due to oversight on the part of the Bank while dispatching the same to the Insurance Company or for any other reason attributable to the Insurance Company after receipt of the said letter. All that we want to emphasise is that the complainant had submitted the ear tag alongwith the claim form which in the aforesaid circumstances did not reach the Insurance Company for consideration of the claim.

SOME reliance has been placed by the Insurance Company on the decision of the National Commission referred to in the impugned order of the District Forum. The facts of this case are distinguishable from the facts before the National Commission in the said case. The National Commission in the said case held that: "as the insured failed to furnish necessary information to the Insurance Company, the latter cannot be said to have refused to consider the bona fide claim under the policy".

In the present case, the complainant gave all the required information and documents alongwith his claim form to the Bank who forwarded the same to the Insurance Company. In answer to the non-receipt of the ear tag by the Insurance Company, it has been asserted by the Bank that all the claim form, post-mortem report alongwith the ear tag were sent to the Bank by registered post in a registered cover alongwith the letter dated 3.12.90 which describes the ear tag was one of the enclosures. Therefore, it was asserted that the Bank had sent the same to the Insurance Company which might have been misplaced at their end. It is difficult in this case to make probe and find out as to the exact place where the ear tag was missed or lost. But it is not a fit case comparable with the case dealing with the Insurance Company referred to above. We are, therefore, of the view that though the Insurance Company cannot be held to be guilty of deficiency in service, the claim of the complainant is a fit one for consideration and settlement. From the certificate of the insurance, we find that the aforesaid she-buffalo was insured for a sum of Rs. 4,500/-on payment of premium bearing policy No. 32821 for a period of three years commencing from 9.5.88. The only ground for repudiation was that immediate information about the death of the she-buffalo was not given to the Insurance Company and the ear tag was not supplied. We have already dealt with both the grounds at the cost of repetition we have mentioned that immediate information had already been given to the Bank. The same must be dealt with as information of the same to the Insurance Company in view of the certificate of the insurance as mentioned above. So far as the ear tag is concerned, the tag number was not known and the ear tag had been lost. On the aforesaid facts, there is no fault on the part of the complainant. In the circumstances, we dispose of this appeal with a direction to the Insurance Company to settle the claim of the complainant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. Appeal disposed of.