B.C. Kandpal, J. (President) - (1.) This is complainant's appeal under Sec. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 22.11.2011 passed by the District Forum, Uttarkashi in consumer complaint No. 44 of 2008. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint against the opposite party No. 2 - insurance company and directed the insurance company to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/ - to the complainant and Rs. 2,000/ - towards litigation expenses together with interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint, i.e., 15.04.2008 till payment. However, being not satisfied with the relief awarded by the District Forum, the complainant has filed the present appeal for enhancement. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that in the month of September, 2004, the complainant had taken a loan of Rs. 60,000/ - from opposite party No. 1 - State Bank of India under Pradhan Mantri Gram Swarojgar Yojna (PMRY) for purchase of mules and purchased one pair of mule from the loan amount. The said mules were got medically examined from the Veterinary Officer, Naitwar, District Uttarkashi. The said mules were allotted tag number and the same were got insured with the opposite party No. 2 - The New India Assurance Company Limited through bank for a period of three years w.e.f. 18.10.2004 for sum of Rs. 30,000/ - each, but the insurance company insured the mules only for a period of one year, whereas the insurance was to be done for a period of three years. During the insurance period, the ear tag of one of the mules went missing, intimation whereof was given to the insurance company through bank and a request was made for retagging, which was duly done on 24.06.2006 and new tag No. NIA -UK/1423 was pierced in the ear of the said mule. It was alleged that the mule bearing tag No. NIA -UK/1423 died on 21.07.2007 due to fall. The complainant lodged the claim with the insurance company and completed all the formalities. The insurance company, however, repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that on the date of death, the mule was not insured and the insurance was only upto 17.10.2005. Thereafter, alleging deficiency in service, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Uttarkashi.
(2.) The bank filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the mules were wrongly insured by the insurance company for a period of one year; that letters dated 02.02.2005 and 21.04.2005 were issued to the insurance company stating therein that the loan has been granted to the complainant under PMRY and, as such, his mules were to be insured for a period of three years; that the insurance company did not issue the new policy after making necessary and required correction; that the claim of the complainant was duly forwarded to the insurance company and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.
(3.) The insurance company filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the insurance was done for the period from 18.10.2004 to 17.10.2005; that the mules were not insured for a period of three years, but the same were insured for a period of one year; that the mule of the complainant had died beyond the period of insurance coverage; that the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.;