Punjab

Sangrur

CC/403/2017

Pardeep Puri - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.S.S.Ratol

06 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  403

                                                Instituted on:    10.08.2017   

                                                Decided on:       06.12.2017

 

Pardeep Puri son of Tripta Nand Puri, R/O Dhuri Road, Near Sunrise Palace, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. SCO-147, Feroz Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its D.M.

                                                        ..Opposite party

 

For the complainant  :       Shri S.S.Ratol, Adv.

For OP                     :       Shri Bhushan Garg, Adv.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Pardeep Puri, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant got insured his four cows from the OP through his bank and accordingly the OP put ear tag to all the animals.  The grievance of the complainant is that the cow bearing tag number 1933 died on 19.5.2017 during the subsistence of the insurance period and the complainant gave intimation to the OP. The post-mortem of the above said cow was also conducted by Veterinary Surgeon of Civil Hospital Sangrur.  Thereafter the OP appointed surveyor, who also clicked photographs and removed tag number 1933 from the body of dead animal and the cost of the cow is said to be Rs.50,000/-.  Thereafter the complainant also submitted all the required documents to the OP, but the OP repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the description of dead cattle mismatch with the insured cattle.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay to the complainant the insurance claim amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply of the complaint filed by the OP, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has suppressed material facts and information, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant gave intimation that the cow died on 29.5.2017 and post-mortem was also conducted.  After receipt of the claim intimation, the OP appointed a surveyor/investigator, namely, Rakesh Kumar Mehta of Malerkotla to find the genuineness of the claim, who submitted his report dated 12.6.2017 and after going through the report, it was observed that the dead animal was not genuine as the same was uninsured cow certified from broken tag number 1933 and further the tag was planted in the right ear of the said animal from the other insured cow.  Further it was found that the legs of the insured cow were white whereas the legs of the cow against which the complainant has claimed are black in colour, which clearly indicates difference in feature, as such, it is stated that thereafter the claim was not found satisfactorily, as such the same was repudiated vide letter dated 17.7.2017.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant got insured the cows from the OP for the period from 31.12.2016 to 30.12.2017, but it is stated that the insured cow has not died and its features also mismatch with the insured one, as such it is stated that the claim has rightly been repudiated. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5 copies of documents and photographs and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-13 copies of documents and affidavits and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant got insured four cows from the OP and the OP accordingly provided four tag numbers 1931, 1932, 1933 and 1937, as is evident from the copy of health certificate on record as Ex.C-3 and this document also contains the full information of the animal in question  in detail regarding animal species, breed, colour, forehead, horns, eyes, tail switch, no. of lactations, age, milk yield etc. Ex.C-4 is the copy of post-mortem report of the animal in question.  The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the insured cow bearing tag number 1933 has died, but the OP has wrongly and wilfully repudiated the rightful claim of the complainant.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has contended vehemently that the claim has rightly been repudiated, as is evident from the copy of investigation report of Rakesh Kumar Mehta, which is on record as Ex.OP-5, which clearly shows that the tag was in broken condition and the features of the cow in question also mismatches with the insured one. The investigator has also opined that the said animal was not genuine and it was uninsured cow certified from broken tag and the tag was planted in the right ear of the said animal.  The insured cow front legs were white where as died cow had black in colour, which clearly indicates the difference in feature and further this averment is supported by the photographs which are on record as Ex.OP-8 to Ex.OP-12. In the circumstances, we find that there is no deficiency in service in repudiating the claim of the complainant.

6.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                December 6, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member