DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT, AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/147

Date of Institution   : 23.02.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision    : 09.09.2022

S. Kirpal Singh son of Sh. Hazara Singh resident of Village Niranjanpur, P.O. Khalchian, Tehsil Baba Bakala, District Amritsar (M.No. 88470-27229). 

                …Complainant Versus

1.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, SCO-31, District Shopping Complex, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar through its Manager/Overall Incharge.

2.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Claim Servicing Office, 2nd Floor Satnam Complex, Near BMC, Chowk, G.T. Road, Jalandhar through Manager/Overall Incharge. 

              …Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 11, 12 & 13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As Amended Upto Date.

 

Present: Sh. Munish Kohli Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. R.P. Singh Adv counsel for opposite parties.

 

Quorum:-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2.Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member 

 

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER, PRESIDENT):

1. The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 11, 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) against the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, and others (hereinafter referred as opposite parties)

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant got insured his three cows bearing tags/token Nos. 20468, 20469 , 20470 for the sum assured of Rs. 1,50,000/- against premium of Rs. 2,913/- for the said cows vide insurance cover note valid from 25.2.2017 to 24.2.2018 having book No. 046 bearing certificate No. 1137, bearing policy No. OG-17-3794-5002-00000042 issued on 25.2.2017. It is further alleged that the description and the structure of the cows has been duly examined by Dr. Rupinder Kaur, Civil Veterinary Hospital, Rayya, Amritsar by visiting the house of the complainant and also tag was put on the ears of the cows by the concerned official of the opposite parties namely Rajwinder Singh. It is alleged that during the validity of insurance policy the cow bearing tag/token No. 20468 died on 21.6.2017 due to “Enteritis which resulted into Toxemia leading to death of animal, cow bearing tag/token No. 20469 died on 25.11.2017 due to “Stage-3 of Parturient paresis” and cow bearing tag/token No. 20470 died on 17.12.2017 due to “Animal died to the congestive heart failure”  and immediately the complainant informed the opposite parties and the opposite parties have appointed a Surveyor who visited the spot and after detailed investigation he has demanded various documents from the complainant and all the documents handed over to the Surveyor by the complainant and also fulfill all the required formalities in the presence of respectable persons. It is further alleged that the postmortem of the above said deceased cow tag No. 20468 was got conducted by Rupinder Kaur, Veterinary Officer, Rayya, Amritsar and the cause of death was said by the Veterinary Officer “Enteritis which resulted into Toxemia leading to death of animal”. It is further alleged that the postmortem of the above said deceased cow tag No. 20469 was got conducted by Sandeep Singh, Veterinary Officer, Rayya, Amritsar and the cause of death was said by the Veterinary Officer “Stage-3 of Parturient paresis”. It is further alleged that the postmortem of the above said deceased cow tag No. 20470 was got conducted by Sandeep Singh, Veterinary Officer, Rayya, Amritsar and the cause of death was said by the Veterinary Officer “Animal died to the congestive heart failure”. It is alleged that the complainant approached the opposite parties and lodged the claim and also submitted the requisite documents alongwith postmortem reports, but the opposite parties have failed to pay the genuine claim of the complainant and vide their letter dated 28.7.2017 and 22.1.2018 repudiate the genuine claim of the complainant by taking false and frivolous ground that “description of dead cattle completely mismatches with the description of cattle insured with us vide tag Nos. 20468, 20469 & 20470”. The above said acts of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.- 

i) To pay an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment made by the complainant.

ii) To pay Rs. 1,00,000/-  as compensation and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses.   

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties appeared and filed written statement by taking preliminary objections interalia on the ground of complainant has not come with clean hands because regarding the cattle tag No. 20469 the complainant has already received the claim amount of Rs. 50,000/- vide cheque bearing No. 778414 dated 14.2.2018. It is further alleged that the claim regarding cattle tag No. 20468 is concern, during investigation it was found that the photograph of the live cattle and photograph of the dead cattle did not match as the tag at the time of pre-inspection was in Right Ear but at the time of the death it was found in the Left Ear of the cattle.    Further in the pre-inspection pictures the left side body was having White colour skin above the Left Side front Leg but at the time of death patch was not on the body on the dead cattle. Colour/patches of the cattle are different as compared with pre-inspection photographs. It is further alleged that the claim regarding cattle tag No. 20470 is concern, during investigation it was found that the photograph of the live cattle and photograph of the dead cattle did not match as the tag at the time of pre-inspection was in Right Ear but at the time of the death it was found in the Left Ear of the cattle. Further in the pre-inspection pictures colour of the legs are black above knee, whereas colour of front leg of died cattle is black up-to the feet. In the pre-inspection pictures the Forehead is having White Patch on it but in the Dead Cattle Pictures the White Patch is in different shape. Thereafter, letter were issued to the complainant to clarify the same, but no reply was given by the complainant, therefore, the claim of the complainant was repudiated and closed the same as “No Claim”. On merits, the opposite parties denied the case of the complainant. 

4. In order to prove the case the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Jaspal Singh Ex.CW2/A, affidavit of Kirpal Singh Ex.CW3/A, alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13 including 4 photographs and closed the evidence. 

5. To rebut the case of complainant the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Manjit Singh Ex.O.P1.2/1, copy of policy Ex.O.P1.2/2, copy of the terms and conditions Ex.O.P1.2/3, copy of investigation report dated 21.7.2017 Ex.O.P1.2/4, copy of the investigation report dated 21.7.2017 Ex.O.P1.2/5, copy of statement of Jaspal Singh Ex.O.P1.2/6, copy of the statement of Kirpal Singh Ex.O.P1.2/7, copy of health certificate Ex.O.P1.2/8, copy of claim form Ex.O.P1.2/9, photographs Ex.O.P1.2/10 to Ex.O.P1.2/24, affidavit of Bhupinderpal Singh Ex.O.P1.2/25, investigation report dated 8.1.2018 Ex.O.P1.2/26, claim form Ex.O.P1.2/27, statement of Kirpal Singh Ex.O.P1.2/28, postmortem report of cattle bearing No. 20470 Ex.O.P1.2/29, repudiation letter dated 16.2.2018 Ex.O.P1.2/30, claim form of cattle having tag No. 20468 Ex.O.P1.2/31, copy of postmortem report of cattle having tag No. 20468 Ex.O.P1.2/32, copy of the repudiation letter Ex.O.P1.2/33, postal receipt Ex.O.P1.2/34 and Ex.O.P1.2/35 and closed the evidence.  

6. Ld. Counsel for complainant has argued that the complainant got insured his three cows bearing tags/token Nos. 20468, 20469 , 20470 for the sum assured of Rs. 1,50,000/- against premium of Rs. 2,913/- for the said cows vide insurance cover note valid from 25.2.2017 to 24.2.2018 having book No. 046 bearing certificate No. 1137, bearing policy No. OG-17-3794-5002-00000042 issued on 25.2.2017. It is further argued that the description and the structure of the cows has been duly examined by Dr. Rupinder Kaur, Civil Veterinary Hospital, Rayya, Amritsar by visiting the house of the complainant and also tag was put on the ears of the cows by the concerned official of the opposite parties namely Rajwinder Singh. It is argued that during the validity of insurance policy the cow bearing tag/token No. 20468 died on 21.6.2017 due to “Enteritis which resulted into Toxemia leading to death of animal, cow bearing tag/token No. 20469 died on 25.11.2017 due to “Stage-3 of Parturient paresis” and cow bearing tag/token No. 20470 died on 17.12.2017 due to “Animal died to the congestive heart failure”  and immediately the complainant informed the opposite parties and the opposite parties have appointed a Surveyor, who visited the spot and after detailed investigation he has demanded various documents from the complainant and all the documents handed over to the Surveyor by the complainant and also fulfill all the required formalities in the presence of respectable persons. It is further argued that the postmortem of the above said deceased cow tag No. 20468 was got conducted by Rupinder Kaur, Veterinary Officer, Rayya, Amritsar, Ex.C-6 and the cause of death was said by the Veterinary Officer “Enteritis which resulted into Toxemia leading to death of animal”. It is further alleged that the postmortem of the above said deceased cow tag No. 20469 was got conducted by Sandeep Singh, Veterinary Officer, Rayya, Amritsar, Ex.C-10 and the cause of death was said by the Veterinary Officer “Stage-3 of Parturient paresis”. It is further argued that the postmortem of the above said deceased cow tag No. 20470 was got conducted by Sandeep Singh, Veterinary Officer, Rayya, Amritsar, Ex.C-11 and the cause of death was said by the Veterinary Officer “Animal died to the congestive heart failure”. It is argued that the complainant approached the opposite parties and lodged the claim and also submitted the requisite documents alongwith postmortem reports, but the opposite parties have failed to pay the genuine claim of the complainant and vide their letter dated 28.7.2017 and 22.1.2018 repudiate the genuine claim of the complainant by taking false and frivolous grounds.

7. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for opposite parties argued that complainant has not come with clean hands because regarding the cattle tag No. 20469 the complainant has already received the claim amount of Rs. 50,000/- vide cheque bearing No. 778414 dated 14.2.2018. It is further argued that the claim regarding cattle tag No. 20468 is concern, during investigation it was found that the photograph of the live cattle and photograph of the dead cattle did not match as the tag at the time of pre-inspection was in Right Ear but at the time of the death it was found in the Left Ear of the cattle and in the pre-inspection pictures the left side body was having White colour skin above the Left Side front Leg but at the time of death patch was not on the body on the dead cattle and Colour/patches of the cattle are different as compared with pre-inspection photographs. It is further argued that the claim regarding cattle tag No. 20470 is concern, during investigation it was found that the photograph of the live cattle and photograph of the dead cattle did not match as the tag at the time of pre-inspection was in Right Ear but at the time of the death it was found in the Left Ear of the cattle and in the pre-inspection pictures colour of the legs are black above knee, whereas colour of front leg of died cattle is black up-to the feet. It is also argued that letters were issued to the complainant to clarify the same, but no reply was given by the complainant, therefore, the claim of the complainant was repudiated and closed the same as “No Claim”.

8. In order to prove the case the complainant has placed on record his detailed affidavit Ex.CW1/A. Further, the complainant has placed on record photographs of the above said cows before and after death Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-15 to Ex.C-17, which shows that the tags were in the left ear of the cows. Further, the complainant in support of his complaint has placed on record copies of postmortem reports  Ex.C-6, Ex.C-10 & Ex.C-11 which shows that the above mentioned cows were dead due to the reason as mentioned in the postmortem reports and this fact is not denied by the opposite parties. 

9. In order to rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party has placed on record copies of investigation reports of cattle claim Ex.O.P1.2/5 and Ex.O.P1.2/26 vide which it is mentioned that the live and dead photographs of the cattle bearing Tag Nos. 20468 & 20470 did not match. The opposite party has further placed on record the alive photographs of the cattle bearing Tag Nos. 20468 & 20470 Ex.O.P1.2/10 to Ex.O.P1.2/24. We have gone through the above said photographs and from the perusal of these photographs, it is established that at the time when the above said cows were alive the tag shows in the right ear and when the above said cows were dead the tag shows in the left ear. Further, from Ex.O.P1.2/10 to Ex.O.P1.2/24 it shows that the colours/patches of cows are different from each other. Moreover, from the perusal of photographs of the above said cows before and after death Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-15 to Ex.C-17 placed on record by the complainant it appeared that the alive and dead animals are different from each other. Therefore, we are of the view that the complainant has failed to prove his case and it is established that the dead cattle bearing Tag Nos. 20468 & 20470 are different from alive cattle. The complainant has already received the claim amount regarding cattle bearing Tag No. 20469.  

10. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the present complaint, therefore, the same is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties free of costs by the District Consumer Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to District Consumer Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

       9th Day of September, 2022 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President             

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member