BIKANER SHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK Vs. MEERA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. WITH a loan advanced by the appellant bank to her, Smt. Meera Devi (reportedly since deceased) has purchased a she-buffalo in order to support herself. As per terms and agreement of the loan advanced by the appellant, the animal was required to be got insured, in order to secure the debt of the appellant. The appellant had, therefore, obtained the Group Insurance Policy in respect of five cows and two buffaloes (including the one purchased by the respondent Meera Devi) for the period from 4.4.1992 to 3.4.1993. As per terms and conditions of such policy the Insurance Co. (respondent. No.2), was obliged to pay a sum of Rs.4,500 towards the loss of animal to the insured. Anyway, the she-buffalo died on 23.4.1992. On 24.4.1992 the deceased complainant duly informed the appellant bank of the death of the animal and required them to obtain the sum assured in respect of the policy of the animal. The appellant bank duly passed such claim to the Insurance Co. on 27.4.1992. On 20.5.1992 the Insurance Co. required the appellant bank to furnish certain informations regarding the deceased animal, in order to enable them to finalise the claim. The case of the Insurance Co. is that since despite repeated reminders, the appellant bank did not furnish the required information to them, the claim of the complainant was filed as "no CLAIM". The case of the appellant bank however, was that it had repeatedly required the complainant to furnish the required information to it but since she did not furnish such information to the bank, it could not pursue the matter with the Insurance Co. The Forum did not accept the version as advanced by the appellant bank and held that since the appellant bank had not furnished the required information to the respondent Insurance Co. , the appellant was liable to reimburse the complainant for the loss of the animal. The Forum accordingly dismissed the complaint as against the Insurance Co. Hence this appeal by the appellant bank.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently urged that on the receipt of the letter from the Insurance Co. on 5.6.1992, they had duly passed such information to the complainant and required her to furnish the relevant informations with regard to the insured animal but since she did not furnish such information, the appellant bank was not at fault. In this behalf the learned Counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the letters dated 15.6.1992, 26.6.1992 and 6.7.1992 addressed to the deceased complainant. We however, agree with the Forum that these letters inspired no confidence for the reasons stated hereinafter.

(3.) It is evident that it was the appellant bank which had obtained a Group Insurance Policy from the respondent Insurance Co. in respect of six animals including the one belonging to the deceased lady. The deceased complainant was simply a village illiterate lady who had contacted the appellant bank not only in the matter of obtaining the loan but also passing the information regarding the death of the insured animal. Once the Insurance Co. had required the appellant bank to provide certain informations to it in order to complete and finalise the claim of the complainant, it was for the appellant bank to have taken appropriate steps in that behalf and furnish such information from the material which was there in its possession and which could have been also in possession of the deceased complainant. It is noteworthy that whereas the appellant appears to have written letters to the respondents Insurance Co. and sent such letters under registered cover, no letter was sent to the deceased complainant even under Postal Certificate. These letters stated to have been sent to her did not bear any endorsement of their having sent to her by any mode. The Forum has rightly disbelieved such evidence produced by the appellant to save itself from its liability.