PER:

Sh. Varinder Pal Singh Saini, Member

1        The complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties by alleging that the complainant is a small farmer and is looking after his family in a very difficult condition as he is a very poor agriculturist and passing his time in a critical way and he has very low income. The opposite party issued a policy regarding the cattle insurance policy to the complainant for his cattle i.e. jersey cow on dated 3.3.2021, the period of insurance was started from 3.3.2021 to 2.3.2022 for a sum of insured amount of Rs. 60,000/-. Unfortunately, the cow of the complainant died on 25.12.2021, the postmortem of his cow was also conducted by the Veterinary Doctor Gurkirptal Singh Mago Veterinary Officer (PAHS) at CVH Panjwar tehsil and District Tarn Taran. The post mortem certificate was also issued by the Doctor, the intimation regarding the death and postmortem was also sent by the complainant to the opposite party but the opposite party did not pay any heed towards the complainant and also did not pay the insurance amount as per the policy of the opposite party. As per insurance policy of the opposite party who has also affixed a sticker on the body of the cow in question at the time of insurance which was very much exist at the time of the death of the cow in question as well as its postmortem which is a strict proof regarding the cow in question. Legal notice was also served on 25.4.2022 to the opposite party but the opposite party did not reply the same and not bother for that, whereas the opposite party is very much liable to reply of the said notice as well as to performed his part of contract as per the cattle insurance policy and to give proper insurance amount to the complainant, but in vain as the official of the opposite party handled the case utmost negligence and did not properly pursue the case of the complainant which is against the norms and terms of the  insurance policy and prayed that claim of Rs. 60,000/- as per insurance may kindly be accepted and allowed in favour of complainant and prayed Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation. Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed ion record affidavit of complainant Ex. C-1, Self attested copy of health Certificate Ex. C-2, Self attested copy of Postmortem Certificate Ex.  C-3, Self attested copy of insurance policy of the cattle Ex. C-4, Self attested copy of mandate form for electronic transfer of claim payment Ex. C-5, Self attested copy of Photographs dead cow Ex. C-6 to Ex. C-12, Self attested copy of legal notice Ex. C-13, Self attested copy of postal receipt Ex. C-14, Self attested copy of Adhar Card Ex. C-15.  

2        Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite party and opposite party appeared through counsel and filed written version by interalia pleadings that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this commission and has not come to the commission with clean hands, therefore, he is not entitled for any claim.  In this case the complainant got his cows insured from the opposite party and tag was affixed bearing No. 70275. So far as  claim regarding cattle bearing No. 70275 is concerned, it is submitted here that after receiving the intimation regarding the loss, investigator was appointed and it was found that description of died cattle was completely mismatches with the description of cattle insured with the opposite party vide Tag No. 70275 as compared with the pre-inspection photographs. Therefore, the claim was repudiated and closed the claim as No Claim and intimation to this effect was given to the complainant vide letter dated 30.12.2021. This fact has been concealed by the complainant from this Commission, therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any claim.  The complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint, as the complaint has been filed without any cause of action. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. Complicated questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint, which requires lengthy procedure of law of evidence by way of examination in chief and cross examination. Thus the matter is required to be relegated to the civil court.  The opposite party has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. Alongwith the written version, the opposite party has placed on record affidavit of Saurav Khullar Senior Executive Claims Legal Ex. OP1, Self attested copy of authority letter/ power of attorney Ex. OP-2, Self attested copy of policy Ex. OP-3, Self attested copy of terms and conditions Ex. OP-4, Self attested copy of claim form Ex. OP-6, Self attested copy of investigation report (including Photographs) Ex.OP-7, Self attested affidavit of investigator Ex. OP-8, Self attested copy of pre-inspection photographs of cattle ex. OP-9 to Ex. OP-11.

3        We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant and opposite party and have carefully gone through the record placed on the file.

4        Ld. Counsel for the complainant contented that the opposite party issued a policy regarding the cattle insurance policy to the complainant for his cattle i.e. jersey cow on dated 3.3.2021, the period of insurance was started from 3.3.2021 to 2.3.2022 for a sum of insured amount of Rs. 60,000/-. He further contended that unfortunately, the cow of the complainant died on 25.12.2021, the postmortem of his cow was also conducted by the Veterinary Doctor Gurkirptal Singh Mago Veterinary Officer (PAHS) at CVH Panjwar tehsil and District Tarn Taran. The post mortem certificate was also issued by the Doctor, the intimation regarding the death and postmortem was also sent by the complainant to the opposite party but the opposite party did not pay any heed towards the complainant and also did not pay the insurance amount as per the policy of the opposite party. He further contended that as per insurance policy of the opposite party who has also affixed a sticker on the body of the cow in question at the time of insurance which was very much exist at the time of the death of the cow in question as well as its postmortem which is a strict proof regarding the cow in question. Legal notice was also served on 25.4.2022 to the opposite party but the opposite party did not reply the same and not bother for that, whereas the opposite party is very much liable to reply of the said notice as well as to performed his part of contract as per the cattle insurance policy and to give proper insurance amount to the complainant, but in vain as the official of the opposite party handled the case utmost negligence and did not properly pursue the case of the complainant which is against the norms and terms of the  insurance policy and prayed that the present complaint may be allowed.

5        On the other hands, Ld. Counsel for the opposite party contended that the complainant got his cows insured from the opposite party and tag was affixed bearing No. 70275. So far as  claim regarding cattle bearing No. 70275 is concerned, it is submitted here that after receiving the intimation regarding the loss, investigator was appointed and it was found that description of died cattle was completely mismatches with the description of cattle insured with the opposite party vide Tag No. 70275 as compared with the pre-inspection photographs. He further contended that the claim was repudiated and closed the claim as No Claim and intimation to this effect was given to the complainant vide letter dated 30.12.2021. This fact has been concealed by the complainant from this Commission, therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any claim.  The complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint, as the complaint has been filed without any cause of action. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. Complicated questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint, which requires lengthy procedure of law of evidence by way of examination in chief and cross examination. Thus the matter is required to be relegated to the civil court and prayed for dismissal of the same.

6        We have gone through the rival contentions of respected parties.

7        In the present case, the complainant got insured his cattle from the opposite party and at the time of issuance of insurance policy the opposite party has affixed Tag No.70275 to the said cattle. The said policy is valid from 3.3.2021 to 2.3.2022 for a sum assured of Rs.60,000/- and the cattle died on 25.12.2021 during the policy period which is quite clear from the postmortem report Ex. C-3. The only objection taken by the opposite party is that “the description of died cattle completely mismatches with the description of cattle insured with us vide Tag No. 70275 as compared with pre inspection photographs”.  The surveyor in his report in conclusion section has written at serial No. 3 that In pre inspection Photographs the cattle was having only 1 tag in ear but the cattle which we verified at insured Dairy farm was having 2 Tags in ear. The investigator himself admitted in his report that “during our visit we found proper tag No. 70275 was intact in died cattle ear”.  

8        From the perusal of above said record, documents, it is proved that the insured cattle died during the policy period and tag which was affixed at the time of insurance was intact at the time of investigation by the investigator after the cattle died. As such it shows that the opposite party has wrongly withheld the lawful claim of the complainant qua the dead insured cow for a long time and it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

9        In light of the above discussion, the complaint succeeds and the same is hereby allowed with costs in favour of the complainant. The opposite Party is directed to make the payment of Rs. 60,000/- to the complainant. The complainant has been harassed by the opposite party unnecessarily for a long time. The complainant is also entitled to Rs.15,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and 10,000/- as litigation expenses. Opposite Party is directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the awarded amount, from the date of complaint till its realisation.  The present case could not be decided within prescribed period due to heavy pendency of cases in this commission. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Commission

21.08.2024