District Consumer Forum, Bokaro.
Complaint Case No. 76 of 2007



Shubham Commercial Animal Farming, a partnership firm having its head office at Shivpuri colony, P.O. & P.S. Chas(Bokaro).Through its partner Sri Tarkeshwar Sing s/o late Yogendra Singh,

R/o Shivpuri Colony, Jodhadih More, P.O.& P.S. Chas,(Bokaro).

Versus

1. National Insurance Co. Ltd. having its registered office at 3, Middleton Street, Kolkata-700071, West Bengal through its Managing Director.

2. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Natraj Mantion, Bye Pass Road, P.O. & P.S.-Chas,(Bokaro).

Before-

S.M.Alam, President

Vijay Bahadur Singh, Member
Shabnam Praveen, Member



Date of Judgment-: 28 March, 2009

Date of case filing-: 28 December, 2007.

-: Judgment:-

The complainant has filed this consumer case

against the opposite parties and sought direction against the opposite parties to pay Rs. 894000/- claim for loss under policy together with Rs. 44700/- interest @ 10% from 01.01.2007 till payment besides Rs. 25000/- compensation and Rs. 10000/-cost of litigation.

2 Brief fact of the case is that the complainant M/s Shubham Commercial Animal Farming is situated at Pindrajora, Bokaro dealing in the Business of animal farming (pig farm). The Business of the Farm had started in the year 2004-05 in order to expand the business the firm appliaed for loan and Union Bank of India, Bokaro Steel City Branch sanctioned disbursed loan as follows:- Term loan for purchase of pigs, Tempo, Shed, Borewell and Pump, Generator etc. Rs 1100000/- and working capital (CC A/C) Rs. 200000/-. The loan was sanctioned in August, 2005. Under the said loan the pigs were required to be insured. Hence after acquisition of pigs, etc, The Bank in response the opposite party and their agent Mr. Shashi Tiwari contacted the complainant and the Bank and after the inspection and other formalities issued a ‘Pig’ insurance policy No. 170401/47/05/940000098 for 200 pigs, maximum sum assured Rs. 12 Lacks against premium paid by cheque. The policy was duly assigned and / hypothecated in favour of the bank-Union Bank of India. The risk period of policy was from 18.11.2005 to 17.11.2006. The opposite party did not inform regarding the terms and conditions of the policy. At the time of insurance there was 200 hundred pig and 70 piglets. Only 50 tags were given to the complainant at the time of issuance of policy and the opposite party had promised to supply the balance 150 tags within a fortnight.

But in spite of follow up by the complainant the opposite party did not supplied balance tags on the pretext of non-avaibility. One pig died on 15.12.2005 and 2 pigs died on 16.12.2005. The complainant immediately informed the opposite party on 16.12.2005; they advised the complainant to get the photography and Postmortem Report. On 16.12.2005 Mr. Shashi Tiwari collected the Postmortem Report, photography and tags of three died 3 pigs. The complainant was assured that the claim formalities will be taken care of and assuring all co-operation. Mr. Shashi Tiwari also collected 2 blank signed letterhead sheets from the complainant. The opposite party did not issue any claim form nor deputed any surveyor. In the mean time on 30.04.2006 25 pigs died. The complainant informed the opposite parties and their agent. The opposite party orally asked the complaint to collect the photo and postmortem report of died pigs, as they will arrange for a consolidated claim.

Another pigs died on 03.05.2006 then the complainant visited the office of the opposite party No.1 who said that the all process till date was wrong as Surveyor Mr. Ajay Kishore lall was deputed. He visited the pig farm find out that some of the pigs are untagged and should be immediately tagged as per required amount of policy. The complainant demanded balance 150 tags from the opposite party but did not give the tag and offered to cancel the policy and return 50% of the premium. The complainant feel cheated and did not agree with the opposite party and filed a complaint petition before D.C. Bokaro on 04.05.2006 and with the interfere of the D.C. Bokaro, the opposite party No.1 supplied the balance 150 tags on 13.05.2006 and got tagging of the pig. On 21.05.2006 some pigs died, the complainant informed the opposite parties and surveyor was deputed for needful. The complainant received from Shashi Tiwari on 24.05.2006 to collect a cheque towards payment of claim amount from opposite party no.2.

Accordingly the complainant went to opposite party no.2 on 25.05.2006 and a cheque of Rs. 65938/- was given to the complainant. As part payment on account of claim in favour of Union Bank of India. The complainant again on 26.05.2002 went to the office of the opposite party no.2 and inquired about the above claim amount, the opposite party informed the complainant that the insurance policy have been canceled and the amount paid was returned of premium. The opposite party also refused to discuss the matter with the complainant. The complainant have caused wrongful loss by fraudulently canceling the contract of insurance under which the opposite party were bound to performing their part by way of settlement of claim of loss suffered under the coverage period. The signed blank letterhead of complainant was concocted by the opposite party as request for cancellation of policy of insurance knowingly cause wrongful loss to the complainant, its firm and the bank. Therefore, the cancelation of policy was improper as because a policy which is singed in favour of the financing Bank could not be canceled without its consent. The aforesaid cancelation of policy both the complainant and Bank have suffered a wrongful loss about Rs. 1200000/-. So far loss incurred till 26.05.2006 the complainant has filed a complaint as C.C. 50/2006 on 27.05.2006 for the loss arising out of the aforesaid insurance policy in respect of 33 pigs amounting to Rs. 300000/- and Rs. 100000/- as loss of interest.
Subsequent to 27.05.2006 pigs also died from time to time which is as follows on 04.08.2006 49, on 18.09.2006 10, on 20.09.2006 41, on 21.09.2006 38 and on 09.10.2006 11 the total pigs died were 149. Intimation was given to the opposite party no.2 and Bank time to time. But the opposite party took no step to settle the claim and wrongfully take a step and canceled the policy and refunds the premium which is negligent and deficient on the part of the opposite parties and hence the complainant is entitled to get the aforesaid relief from them.

3 Upon issuance of notices the opposite parties appeared and filed their written statement stating therein that the complainant have filed case No.50/2006 on 26.06.2006 which is pending for final hearing as such the present complaint is barred under the principle of waiver and stopple as there is no new think in this case to consider by the this Forum, which fact has been concealing by the complainant. However the opposite parties admitted that the complainant had taken insurance policy of pig on 18.11.2005 which was valid from 18.11.2005 to 17.12.2006. The opposite party also denied that the complainant had given 2 blank signed letterheads to the Agent of insurance co. The complainant has also failed to produce the Postmortem Report of the dead pigs before the insurance co. to settle the claim as per condition of the policy; as such the insurance co. is not liable to pay any claim of the complainant.
The complainant had himself wrote a letter to the Chief Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. to cancel the said insurance policy and returned the premium amount since the above policy does not cover the piglets and accordingly the insurance co. canceled the said policy and returned the premium amount to the complainant through Union Bank of India Bokaro account to the complainant on 25.05.20006 vide cheuqe no. 405264 of Indian Overseers Bank, B.S.City. The intimation of the complainant was only to grab the insurance money on the false and baseless ground, therefore, there is no any deficiency and negligency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the opposite parties has acted in accordance with provision of insurance fact and as such, the opposite parties are not liable to pay any claim to the complainant and the complaint case is fit to be dismissed.

4 Heard both the parties and perused the entire case records and documents filed by the parties. It is observed that the complainant has alleged death of 149 pigs on different dates mentioned at para XVI of the complaint petition and accordingly the insurance co. was informed regarding the same for payment of claim under the insurance coverage of the pigs. It is found that no postmortem report has been filed by the complainant in respect of the alleged death of 149 pigs. In absence of the same the death of the pigs mentioned above is not established. In view of the above we have arrived at the conclusion that there has not been any negligence and deficiency on the part of the opposite party insurance co. while not paying claim of the complainant. We, therefore, do not hold the opposite parties liable to pay any relief to the complainant.

5 Under the facts and circumstances of the case no merit is found in the complaint case and same is dismissed accordingly hereby.