Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/528/2019

Kuldeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sukhwinder Kaur Adv. & Ajay Singla Adv.

10 Jun 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Consumer Complaint No.	:	528/2019
Date of Institution	:	10.06.2019
Date of Decision	:	10.06.2022

 

                     

Kuldeep Singh son of late S.Sirya Singh r/o Village Andheri, District Mohali (Punjab).

                 ...  Complainant.

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., O/o SCO 156-159, 2^nd Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh through its Manager.

…. Opposite Party.

BEFORE:
	SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA,	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
Argued by:-
	Sh.Ajay Singla, Adv. for the complainant
	Sh.Nikhil Sabharwal, Adv. for the OP.

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.     Briefly stated, the facts of case as alleged by the complainant are that he purchased the insurance policy  No.OG-18-1201-5002-00001479 from the OP for his cows  and token numbers of the respective animals were written therein along with their colours.  One of the insured cows bearing token No.130005-554070 (Animal No.2 in Annexure C-1) insured with the OP died on 03.09.2018 due to congestive heart failure accompanied by pneumonitis.  The postmortem certificate issued under the signatures of Dr.Navpreet Kaur, Veterinary Officer, C.V.H. Kurali, SAS Nagar showing the cause of death of the cow and tag No.13005-554070 was attached herewith as Annexure C-2 and death certificate issued by the OP was attached herewith as Annexure C-3.  It has further been averred that the investigator of the OP visited and prepared the report and it was apprised to him that the tag of the cow was damaged by another animal in last night and on the next day, the cow in question passed away as such they were not able to get issued a new tag, the portion of the tag like locking pin had been shown to the investigator who had taken the photographs of the same.  Subsequently, he got the letter dated 18.09.2018 (received on 25.09.2018) from the OP requiring him to provide the information and tag and the same was replied by him vide letter dated 28.09.2018.  However, he received a letter dated 25.09.2018 whereby the claim was repudiated without waiting for the reply within the period granted to him. It has further been averred that the OP has repudiated the genuine claim illegally and arbitrarily.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OP amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint. 
2.     In its written statement, the OP while admitting the factual matrix of the case has pleaded that the claim was rightly repudiated on account of breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  It has further been stated that there was a specific condition to the effect that in the event, the tag placed on the insured animal at the time of the insurance is broken and/or lost, the same would result into repudiation of the insurance contract thereby absolving the OP from any liability arising under the said contract.  It has further been stated that on receipt of the intimation regarding the death of the alleged insured cow, Sh.Satinder Singh Bedi, Independent Investigator was appointed to investigate the claim who submitted his detailed report dated 17.09.2018 (Annexure R-2) whereby he has opined that no tag whatsoever was found on the ear of the dead carcass  where it had been placed at the time of insurance.  The investigator also recorded the statements of the complainant and one Gurmeet Singh, Village Sarpanch regarding the incident. It has further been stated that the perusal of the photographs reveals that the part of the ear where the tag was supposed to be placed had been systematically cut out so as to give a false impression that it was eaten away.  It has further been stated that the claim was rightly repudiated keeping in view the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the investigator report. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.     The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of the OP controverting its stand and reiterating his own.
4.     We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record as well as written arguments of the complainant.
5.       After going through the documentary evidence on file, we are of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that in the present case the tag which was assigned to the cow had not been submitted with the insurance claim and the policy conditions clearly provides for ‘No Tag No Claim’. The policy endorsement relating to ‘No Tag No Claim’, which is printed on the policy schedule, provides as under:-

Warranties: Broken tag is not acceptable. No Tag No Claim initial 15 days exclusion period applicable for death due to any disease contracted during the exclusion period.

6.     As regards, the letter/application which had been submitted by the complainant to the opposite party on 28.09.2018 (Annexure C-5) is concerned, the same was a clear cut attempt on the part of the complainant to make out a case for not repudiating his claim on the ground that the tag was damaged by the other animals of the herd as it cannot be believed that the tag of the cow which was damaged on 02.09.2018, collapsed on the very next morning i.e. on 03.09.2018. We have no hesitation to conclude that it was the mandatory requirement as per terms and conditions of the policy that in case tag is not surrendered in the event of death of the insured animal, then the Insurance Company will not be liable to indemnify the insured and since in the present case the complainant has failed to deposit the ear tag of insured cow with the Insurance Company, hence we are of the considered view that the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated and there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
7.     In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
8.     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced 10/06/2022
	Sd/-  (PRITI MALHOTRA) PRESIDING MEMBER
	Sd/-
	(B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER