Back
ORISSA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CUTTACK
Honble Mr. Justice P.C. Misra, President;
Mr. Biswanath Rath & Mrs. Mrinalini Padhi, Members
SRI LAXMAN MOHANTY—Appellant
versus
THE BRANCH MANAGER, BALASORE
GRAMYA BANK & ANR—Respondents
Consumer Dispute Appeal No. 312 of 1992— Decided on 5.11.1996
For the Appellant :M/s. G.C. Das & T.N. Pattnaik, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. D. Das, Advocate.
An insurance company cannot repudiate a livestock insurance claim on the ground of delay in intimation of the death of the insured animal or non-receipt of the ear tag, if the insured has complied with the policy conditions and has submitted all the necessary documents to the bank or insurance company.
Headnote:
INSURANCE - LIVESTOCK INSURANCE - DELAY IN INTIMATION OF DEATH OF INSURED BUFFALO - WHETHER REPUDIATION OF CLAIM BY INSURANCE COMPANY JUSTIFIED - INTERPRETATION OF CONDITION 7 OF CATTLE POLICY - DUTY OF INSURED TO INTIMATE DEATH OF INSURED ANIMAL TO BANK OR INSURANCE COMPANY - WHETHER INTIMATION TO BANK SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITION - WHETHER INSURANCE COMPANY LIABLE TO SETTLE CLAIM DESPITE DELAY IN INTIMATION AND NON-RECEIPT OF EAR TAG - LEGAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING SETTLEMENT OF LIVESTOCK INSURANCE CLAIMS.
Fact of the Case:
Complainant purchased a she-buffalo and insured it with the respondent insurance company for a period of three years. The buffalo died due to a snake bite and the complainant informed the bank, which in turn informed the insurance company. The insurance company repudiated the claim on the grounds that the complainant had not given immediate intimation of the death of the buffalo and had not submitted the ear tag of the buffalo. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, which dismissed the complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the complainant had given immediate intimation of the death of the buffalo to the bank, which was sufficient compliance with Condition 7 of the Cattle Policy. The court also held that the insurance company was not justified in repudiating the claim on the ground of non-receipt of the ear tag, as the complainant had submitted the ear tag to the bank and it was not his fault that the ear tag was not received by the insurance company.
Issues: 1. Whether the complainant had given immediate intimation of the death of the buffalo to the bank or insurance company as required by Condition 7 of the Cattle Policy? 2. Whether the insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim on the ground of non-receipt of the ear tag?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Condition 7 of the Cattle Policy to mean that the insured was required to intimate the death of the insured animal to either the bank or the insurance company. The court held that the complainant had complied with this condition by informing the bank of the death of the buffalo. 2. The court held that the insurance company was not justified in repudiating the claim on the ground of non-receipt of the ear tag, as the complainant had submitted the ear tag to the bank and it was not his fault that the ear tag was not received by the insurance company.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and directed the insurance company to settle the claim of the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of the order.
Mr. Justice P.C. Misra, President—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.
2. 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.
3. 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).
4. 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
