Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/30/2023

KULDEEP SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD - Opp.Party(s)

SUKHWINDER KAUR & AJAY SINGLA ADV.

09 Jan 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Additional Bench]

 

Appeal No.	:	A/30/2023
Date  of  Institution	:	20/02/2023
Date   of   Decision	:	09/01/2024

 

 

 

 

 

Kuldeep Singh son of Late S. Sirya Singh, Resident of Village Andheri, District Mohali (Punjab).

….Appellant

Vs.

 

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Limited, O/o SCO 156-159, Second Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

…. Respondent

 

 

BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY   PRESIDING MEMBER

                PREETINDER SINGH     MEMBER

 

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Ajay Singla, Advocate for the Appellant (on V.C)
		Sh. Preet Harinder Singh Pannu, Advocate for the Respondent

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

1.         This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.06.2022, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it dismissed the Consumer Complaint bearing no.CC/528/2019.

2.         For the convenience, the parties are being referred to, in the instant Appeal, as position held in Consumer Complaint before the Ld. Lower Commission.

 

3.         Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was the case of the Complainant that he purchased insurance Policy bearing No.OG-18-1201-5002-00001479 from the Opposite Party 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 Health Certificate Annexure C-1) insured with the Opposite Party 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. It was averred, when the investigator of the Opposite Party visited and prepared the report he was apprised 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, the Complainant got letter dated 18.09.2018 (received on 25.09.2018) from the Opposite Party requiring him to provide the information and tag, which was duly replied 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 was alleged that the Opposite Party has repudiated the genuine claim illegally and arbitrarily.  Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

4.         In the reply filed before the Ld. Lower Commission, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, Opposite Party pleaded that the claim was rightly repudiated on account of breach of the terms & conditions of the Insurance Policy.  It was asserted 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 Opposite Party from any liability arising under the said contract.  It was submitted 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 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 Sh. Gurmeet Singh, Village Sarpanch regarding the incident. It was also asserted that 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 was pleaded that the claim was rightly repudiated keeping in view the terms & conditions of the Insurance Policy and the investigator report. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Parties prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

 

5.         On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, Ld. Lower Commission dismissed the Complaint of the Complainant as noticed in the opening para of this order.  

 

6.         Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Complainant.

 

7.         We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care.

 

8.         It is the case of the Appellant/Complainant that the Ld. Lower Commission while passing the impugned order has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence available on record, which resulted into perverse finding.  Learned Counsel for the Appellant/ Complainant has argued that the Ld. Lower Commission primarily dismissed the Complaint on the ground that the tag which was assigned to the cow had not been submitted with the insurance claim. To buttress his arguments, Learned Counsel submitted that the Appellant/Complainant had duly apprised the Investigator that a night prior to death of the cow, the tag was damaged by another animal and in the morning, the cow passed away; as such, the Appellant was not having enough time to get a new one issued, but the portion of the tag was shown to the Investigator who had taken the photographs of the same. 

 

9.         Learned Counsel for the respondent argued that there is clear violation of the terms & conditions of the policy as at the time of lodging claim the tag of the cow was not submitted, therefore, the Appellant/ Complainant is not entitled for any claim and the same was rightly repudiated. He submitted that the Ld. Lower Commission has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and has passed a reasoned order, which does not call for any interference.

 

10.         There is no dispute about the fact that the circumstances in which the Appellant/Complainant was placed, were beyond his control to get issue a new tag for the cow that passed away in the next morning.  Record showed, the Respondents were in haste to repudiate the claim of the Appellant without expiry of the time given for filing reply vide letter dated 18.09.2018. To make it more clear, it is added, the response to the said letter was submitted by the Appellant on 28.09.2018, but the Respondent repudiated the claim of the Appellant vide letter dated 24.09.2018 without waiting for the reply. These facts have not been appreciated by the Ld. Lower Commission while passing the order impugned before us.  Pertinently, the necessity of tagging an animal with the ear tag is felt as there will be several animals with same features. We cannot loose sight of the fact that the respondent insurance company had appointed an investigator who had taken photographs of the dead cow. The dead cow subjected to postmortem examination and as per the report of postmortem examination the dead cow possessed same ear tag which was mentioned in the health certificate issued by the Respondent insurance company. Even the same ear tag was also mentioned in the death certificate issued by the Respondent insurance company. Thus, in the face of the facts of the case, mere non deposit of the ear tag of insured cow could not have been taken as a ground to reject the claim against the insurance company. 

 

11.         It is thus legitimately proved that the subject cow was duly insured with the respondent-insurance company and was died on 03.09.2018.  The sole basis of repudiation of the claim is non-submission of the ear tag of the insured animal in the light of finding hereinabove, is not sustainable especially when the tag number of the dead cow mentioned in the death certificate had tallied with that of the insured cow stated in the certificate of insurance. The manner in which the respondent repudiated the claim smacks of arbitrariness. Thus, the Ld. Lower Commission while passing the impugned order has failed to take note of this vital aspect and has wrongly held that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Respondent/Opposite Party.

 

12.         This Commission, therefore, is of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Commission is not based on the correct appreciation of the material on record. Resultantly, the present appeal filed by the Appellant/Complainant stands accepted. The order of the Ld. Lower Commission is set-aside and Respondent/Opposite Party is directed as under:-

 

(i)     To pay the insured amount of the cow to the tune of ₹30,000/- to the Appellant/Complainant along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of repudiation, till realization.

 

        (ii)    To pay ₹10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment to the Appellant/complainant.

 

        (iii)    To pay ₹10,000/- as costs of litigation.

 

12.         The above order shall be complied with by the Respondent/Opposite Party, within thirty days from today, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above. 

 

13.         No other point was urged by the Counsel for the Parties.

 

14.         All the pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed off accordingly.

 

15.         Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

 

16.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

09^th January, 2024                                                                    

                                         Sd/-                         

                                                                (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”