STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND DEHRADUN FIRST APPEAL NO. 137 / 2021 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Srinagar, Near Garhwal University through its Regional Manager, Regional Office NCR Plaza, Cantt. Road, Dehradun …… Appellant / Opposite Party No. 1 Versus

1. Sh. Shankar Lal S/o Sh. Radhu Lal R/o Village Kiruli, P.O. Gadora Tehsil Chamoli, District Chamoli (Uttarakhand)

…… Respondent No. 1 / Complainant

2. State Bank of India Branch Pipalkoti, District Chamoli (Uttarakhand)

through its Branch Manager …… Respondent No. 2 / Opposite Party No. 2 Sh. Suresh Gautam, Learned Counsel for the Appellant Sh. Pradeep Bartwal, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 Sh. Amber Barthwal, Advocate, holding brief of Sh. Ashish Chakravarty, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.S. Tripathi, President Mr. Udai Singh Tolia, Member-II Dated: 19/10/2022

ORDER

(Per: Justice D.S. Tripathi, President):

This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 13.08.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chamoli (in short “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 06 of 2016; Sh. Shankar Lal Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another, by which the consumer complaint was allowed and the appellant – opposite party No. 1 was directed to pay the insured amount of dead mule amounting to Rs. 60,000/- to respondent No. 1 – complainant together with interest @6% p.a. from the date of institution of the consumer complaint till payment, besides Rs. 10,000/- towards financial; physical and mental agony & Rs. 5,000/- towards costs.

2. Facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are that according to the consumer complaint, for the purpose of earning his livelihood, the respondent No. 1 – complainant had applied for loan with Social Welfare Department, for the purchase of two mules. Upon sanction of the loan, sum of Rs. 90,000/- was disbursed by State Bank of India, Pipalkoti – respondent No. 2 (opposite party No. 2 before the District Commission) in the complainant’s bank account. After arranging funds of Rs. 30,000/- from his own sources, the complainant had purchased two mules for total sum of Rs. 1,20,000/-. As per the terms and conditions of the loan, the said mules were got insured by the bank with the appellant – insurance company. On 24.02.2015, the complainant was going to his village Kiruli along with the insured mules. However, in the way, the mule bearing tag No. OIC/0338 died on account of pushing, intimation whereof was given to the bank on 25.02.2015 and copy thereof was also given to Veterinary Officer, Chamoli, who conducted the postmortem of the dead mule on the same day. Upon receipt of the postmortem report, the complainant lodged the claim with the insurance company through the bank. The insurance company through letter dated 27.05.2015, stating therein that half portion of ear tag No. OIC/0338 submitted by the complainant is broken / damaged, hence it is not established that the insured mule had died. By not paying the legitimate claim of the complainant, the insurance company has resorted to deficiency in service. Thus, the consumer complaint was filed before the District Commission.

3. The appellant – insurance company filed written statement before the District Commission, wherein it was pleaded that through letter dated 27.05.2015, the complainant was informed that half portion of submitted ear tag is damaged and he was called upon to submit the complete ear tag, which he did not produce. Since the complainant did not complete the required formalities, hence the claim was repudiated as “No Claim” vide letter dated 31.03.2016. The insurance company had appointed Sh. Sanjay Kumar Budakoti as investigator, who submitted his report dated 16.03.2015, stating therein that the claim is not payable, on account of the reason that in the ear tag submitted by the complainant, the tag No. OIC/0338 is not clear. The comp