GURMEET KAUR Vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant had applied to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 through the Punjab Scheduled Caste, Soil Development and Financial Corporation, Muktsar Branch (in short "the Corporation") for the grant of loan to the tune of Rs. 30,000 for purchasing the buffaloes. The Corporation recommended this application to the respondents. The appellant was entitled to Rs. 6,000 as subsidy. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 sanctioned the loan and first instalment of Rs. 13,000 was released on 6.12.2000 out of which Rs. 3,000 were against subsidy. The appellant had added Rs. 1,000 from her pocket and purchased the buffalo for a sum of Rs. 14,000. The buffalo was insured with respondent No. 3 for an amount of Rs. 14,000 vide insurance policy dated 26.1.2001. The policy was valid for a period of one year upto 25.1.2002.

(2.) IT was further pleaded that the said buffalo fell ill and died on 23.3.2001 due to acute tympany (afara). The information was given by the appellant to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 vide letter dated 24.4.2001. Respondents No. 1 and 2 informed respondent No. 3 on telephone and the appellant was directed to take the photographs of the dead body and also to get the post -mortem conducted on the dead body of the buffalo. She was also asked to fill the necessary forms and to submit the insurance claim with them. It was further pleaded that the appellant complied with the formalities and submitted the papers to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 but there was no response. In April 2001 the appellant went to the Field Officer Basant Kumar to make inquiries about her insurance claim but she was told to come again. Then the appellant along with her uncle Partap Singh went to the respondents but there was no favourable response.

(3.) IT was further pleaded that in July 2001 the officials of the respondent Bank returned the photographs of the dead cattle and the post -mortem report to the appellant and told her to submit the same to respondent No. 3. On 26.7.2001 the appellant submitted these papers to respondent No. 3 but she was told to submit the papers later on. However, the respondents did not care for the claim of the appellant. Hence alleging deficiency in service, the appellant filed the complaint against the respondents in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mukstar (in short "District Forum") for the recovery of the insurance claim along with compensation, interest and costs.