BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

FORUM, MOGA.

Complaint No.08 of 2015

                                                                   Instituted On: 22.01.2015

Decided On: 10.06.2015

Satinder Singh son of S. Jarnail Singh resident of Village Kot-Ise-Khan, District Moga. 

……..Complainant

Versus

1.     Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, Limited (Regd Office) GE

        Plaza, Airport Road, Yer Wada, Pune (411006)

2.     Bajaj  Allianz General Insurance Company Malwal Road, Opposite  J

        & K Bank, Ferozepur City (Punjab)

3.       Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, GT Road, Moga.

………Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

                                                                   ****

Coram:       Sh.S.S.Panesar, President

                  Smt Bhupinder Kaur, Member

Present:      Sh Rajiv Kumar Mittal, Advocate counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh. Jasvinder Singh , Advocate, counsel for OP Nos.1 to 3

C.C. No. 08 of 2015                //2//

ORDER

(S.S.Panesar, President)

Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) against the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, Limited (Regd Office) GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yer Wada, Pune (411006) & others (herein-after referred to as opposite parties) directing them to pay the insurance claim amount Rs.50,000/- on account of death of cow alongwith interest @12% per annum, Rs.20,000/-as  compensation for causing mental tension and harassment besides Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses and also to grant any other relief to which this Forum may deem proper.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant got his cow insured with the opposite parties for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, which was valid for a period from 22.11.2013 to 21.11.2014. It has been pleaded that cow of the complainant died on 05.10.2014. The intimation in this regard was given to the opposite parties and the complainant also completed all the formalities for the settlement of the claim. Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite parties many a times and requested them to make the payment of claim amount, But the opposite parties refused to do so. Due to the negligent act of the opposite parties, the complainant is suffering from mental and physical harassment and economic loss.  Hence the present complaint.

3.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties.

C.C.No. 08 of 2015                 //3//

Opposite parties appeared through counsel Sh. Jasvinder Singh Advocate and filed joint written reply contesting the same. It took up certain preliminary objections interalia that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complaint is false and frivolous; that a complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint; that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands; that after receipt of intimation of loss on 05.10.2014, the opposite parties deputed investigator for spot investigation, who did the spot inspection and found that the tag was very much fresh and planted in the ear of dead animal during her illness only prior to her death. The ear tag was smear with blood and hair clutch in the ear tag, which clearly shows that the fresh tag has been fixed in the ear of dead animal. Sh N.S. Dhillon, who was appointed as a surveyor to investigate the matter also mentioned in his report that the animal in question was a sold animal. Insured has accepted in the statement. Buyer also accepted that the tagged animal was purchased from Satinder Singh complainant. In this way, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and as such the claim in question is not payable, so close the file as “No claim” vide letter dated 31.12.2014. On merits, facts narrated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.

4.                In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6, Two

C.C.No. 08 of 2015                 //4//

photographs Ex.C-7, Ex.C-8, Counsel fee certificate Ex.C-9   and closed his evidence.

5.                To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered affidavit of Smt. Sarpreet Kaur authorized Signatory Ex.OP1to 3/1 and copies of other documents Ex.OP1to 3/2 to Ex. O.P1to 3/31 and closed their evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the record.

7.                On the basis of evidence on record, the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that the complainant had insured his cow with the opposite parties for a sum of Rs.50,000/- vide policy       No. OG-14-1213-5002-00000395, tag No.89193 for a period w.e.f. 22.11.2013 to 21.11.2014, copy of the insurance policy accounts for         Ex. C-3.  It is also an admitted fact that the insured cow died on 05.10.2014. The veterinary doctor conducted postmortem on the dead animal at Civil Veterinary Hospital, Fatehgarh Panjtoor, copy of the postmortem report accounts for Ex.C-6. It is further contended that the information of the death of the cow was given to the opposite parties and the complainant completed all the formalities for getting the claim. But, however, the opposite parties did not pay any claim to the complainant and the claim of the complainant was turned down vide letter dated 31.12.2014, copy whereof is Ex.O.P-1,2,3/2. It is further contended that there was absolutely no rhyme or reason for declining the claim. The act and conduct

C.C.No. 08 of 2015                 //5//

of the opposite parties has caused mental tension and agony to the complainant. The complainant is entitled to recover the insurance amount of Rs.50,000/- along with damages to the tune of Rs.10,000/-besides litigation expenses to be assessed by this Forum.

8.                On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties has vehemently contended that on receipt of information of death of insured animal on 05.10.2014, the opposite parties deputed investigator for spot investigation. The investigator conducted spot investigation of the dead animal. The tag of the animal was found to be fresh and planted in the ear of the alleged dead animal during her illness, some time prior to her death for the reasons known to the complainant. The ear tag was smeared with blood and it had a hair clutch therein, which clearly shows that fresh tag had been fixed in the ear of the dead animal in total violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. On receipt of the report of the independent investigator Shri N.S. Dhillon, the claim of the complainant was declined vide letter Ex. Ex.O.P-1,2,3/2. Further more it is an admitted case of the complainant that the animal was sold to one Lakhwinder Singh Village Noorwala Hakima, Tehsil Dharamkot, Moga. Photostat copy of the affidavit of Lakhwinder Singh accounts for Ex.O.P-1,2,3/28 while affidavit to fortify the said sale filed by Satinder Singh complainant accounts for Ex.O.P-1,2,3/29. The contention of Satinder Singh complainant that he had taken back the animal in dispute as Lakhwinder Singh failed to make payment of the balance sale price does not revive the insurance policy

C.C.No. 08 of 2015                 //6//

Because the insurance policy incurred forfeiture immediately at the time of sale of the insured animal in view of Clause 3.9 of the insurance policy.

9.                It is further contended that instant complaint is nothing, but an abuse of the process of law. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Since the terms and conditions of the insurance policy were binding inter-se party and the insurance claim having been declined under the provisions of the insurance policy, therefore, instant complaint as framed is not maintainable and it is requested that the instant complaint may be dismissed.     

10.              We have given thoughtful consideration to rival contentions.

11.              There is no denying the fact that cow belonging to the complainant was insured with the opposite parties vide insurance cover Ex.C-3, which was valid for the period w.e.f. 22.11.2013 to 21.11.2014. It is also an admitted fact that the insured animal died on 05.10.2014 and intimation in this regard was duly received by the opposite parties. On receipt of the information regarding death of the insured animal, an independent investigator Sh N.S. Dhillon was appointed with a direction to visit the spot. After making spot investigation, the investigator submitted his investigation report Ex. O.P-1,2,3/3. During investigation, the investigator also recorded statement of Satinder Singh complainant. Besides that Lakhwinder Singh, Village Noorwala Hakima, Tehsil Dharamkot, Moga, submitted his duly sworn affidavit, copy whereof is Ex. O.P-1,2,3/28. The opposite parties have taken an objection in the

C.C.No. 08 of 2015                 //7//

written statement to the effect that the insured animal in dispute had already been sold by Satinder Singh complainant in favour of Lakhwinder Singh. In his affidavit Ex.C-1, the complainant has not controverted the allegations regarding sale of the animal in dispute in favour of Lakhwinder Singh. The affidavit filed by Satinder Singh is totally silent on this vital aspect of the case, which means and amply that the complainant admitted the factum of the sale of the insured animal in favour of one Lakhwinder Singh. The contention that since Lakhwinder Singh did not pay the balance sale price of the animal, therefore, he took back the animal after few days, does not cut any ice. Because sale of the animal in dispute became final when the complainant received part payment and the custody of the animal in dispute was given to Lakhwinder Singh. After the conclusion of the sale, in view of Clause 3.9 of the Insurance Policy, the Insurance cover stood forfeited. Even, if it is presumed for the sake of arguments that the insured animal was taken back because Lakhwinder Singh did not pay the balance sale price, even then the insurance cover cannot be said to have revived.

12.              Not only that the report of the investigator is quite clear that tag in the ear of the dead animal was not found intact, the tag appear to have been fixed a few days prior to the death of the animal during its illness. It was smeared with blood besides having hair clutch in the tag. The said facts in the investigation report Ex.O.P.-1,2,3/3 clearly show that fresh tag has been fixed in the ear of the dead animal to earn a gain against the insurance policy in dispute in total disregard of its terms and conditions.

C.C.No. 08 of 2015                 //8//

13.              On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it transpires that instant complaint is nothing, but an abuse of the process of law. Not only that the insurance cover stood forfeited by sale of the insured animal by the complainant in favour of Lakhwinder Singh, but also the ear tag attached to the animal was not kept intact nor any intimation regarding the loss of the ear tag was made to the opposite parties for replacement of the same. This shows that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy within impunity. It is a settled principal of law that no claim was payable in case of tag being not kept intact. In the absence of tag being not intact, identification of the insured animal also cannot be made. Therefore we have no inhibition in dismissing the instant complaint and we order accordingly. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost immediately and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

(Bhupinder Kaur)                     (S.S. Panesar)

                                  Member                                    President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:10.06.2015.