Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/70/2019

Sukhvir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh H S Bhutta

16 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

                               COMMISSION

                        FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                                                             

Consumer  Complaint No.	:	CC/70 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	21/10/2019
Date of Decision	:	16.05.2023

 

Sukhvir Singh aged about 28 years son of Sh. Joginder Singh, resident of Village Salana Jiwan Singh wala ,  Tehsil Amloh, District Fathegarh Sahib.

                                                                                                                           ......…....Complainant

                                                Versus

1.   Canara Bank  Branch office, Village Salana, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Branch Manger .
2. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Regd. And Head Office:24, Whites Road, Chennai-600014, through its MD/ Chairman /Authorized Person.

                                                                              ..………....Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 to 14 of Consumer Protection Act 1986(old)

Quorum

Sh. S.K.Aggarwal, President

Ms. Shivani Bhargava, Member

Sh. Manjit Singh Bhinder, Member

 

Present: Sh. Harpreet Singh Bhutta, counsel for complainant.

     Sh.N.K.Sharma, counsel for OP no.2.

      OP no.1 Ex-Parte vide order dated 9.12.2019

 

 The  complaint has been filed by the complainant  against the OPs (opposite parties),  Under Section 12 to 14 of Consumer Protection Act-1986(old) alleging deficiency in service with  prayer for giving direction to the OPs to pay  the amount of Rs.43,000/-  alongwith upto date interest @ 9% P.A  plus Rs.20,000/- as compensation  and litigation  cost to the complainant.

1.  The complainant took  loan from the OP no.1  and    purchased one cow and one buffalo to start diary farming.  As per the instructions of OP no.1, the complainant got his cow and buffalo insured with the OP no.2 through OP no.1.  The cow in question was insured for Rs.43,000/- The complainant paid Rs.4494/- to OP no.2 through OP no.1 as premium amount and period of insurance was from 29.1.2014 to 22.1.2015 . Thereafter the cow  died on 12.9.2014 and complainant informed the OPs on the same day . The official/investigator of the OPs visited the complainant and inspected dead cow to complete formalities. The ear tag was taken away by the investigator and complainant was asked to get Post mortem of the cow done . On 13.9.2014 the Post mortem was carried out by vaternary officer of Civil Hospital  Shamshpur . The complainant then lodged claim with OPs through OP no.1 and submitted all  required documents on 22.9.2014 . At that time  the complainant was assured that the sum assured  i. e Rs.43,000/- will be paid to him within 30 days.  But inspite of the expiry of the said period , the OPs have not paid the amount of claim.  The complainant made so many requests to the OPs to pay the claim amount but they went on putting off the matter on one pretext or the other.  The complainant then sent a legal  notice dated 11.3.2019 to the OP no.2 .  Inspite of the service of notice, the OPs have neither made any payment nor given any reply of said notice. Hence this complaint.
2.      Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs no.1 and 2 through registered Post, OP no.2 appeared and filed  written version . OP no.1 not appeared, despite service of summons, as such OP no.1 was proceeded against Ex-Parte vide order  dated 9.12.2019 .
3.          The complaint has been contested by the OP no.2, filed written version ,raising preliminary objections.  Under the terms and conditions of Policy of insurance the complainant had taken cattle insurance Policy bearing no.200603/47/13/01/00000055 for the period from  29.1.2014 to 28.1.2015 for 2 buffalos.  The Animal  Health certificate of 2 buffalos was duly submitted with the OP.  The present claim is regarding   death of cow.  As per  Policy of insurance, 2 buffalos were covered under policy of insurance and no cow was insured by the OP no2 . As per Policy of insurance the sum insured for  Murrah black horns open curved buffalo was Rs.37,000/-  and sum  insured for other buffalo Mix black horns curved was  Rs.43,000/-.  The premium amount worth Rs.4494/- was paid  for the insurance of 2 buffalo.  No cow  was insured under the Policy of insurance by the OP. The OP  after getting information appointed its penal surveyor  Sh. Ashok Kumar who immediately inspected the dead cow and after  investigation it was found that the dead cow does not comes under Policy  of Insurance as such the claim of complainant was repudiated after proper intimation.  OP no.2 prayer for dismissal of complaint with cost has been made.
4. The complainant in support of his complaint tendered in evidence his  affidavit Ex.CW1/A and  photo copies of documents i.e  EX.C1  insurance  Policy,  Ex.C2 to Ex.C4, Ex.C4/A photographs  of the dead cow,  Ex.C.5 claim form dated 22.9.2014 ,  Ex.C6  Legal notice , Ex.C7 Postal receipts and closed his evidence.
5.   In rebuttal the OP2 tendered EX.RW1 affidavit of  Sanjiv Kumar  Assistant Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. , branch office Khanna ,   photo copies of documents i.e ,  Ex.OP1  Policy of insurance for the  period 29.1.2014 to 28.1.2015 , Ex.OP2  request letter ,  Ex.OP3 letter sent to OP no.2 by OP no.1 ,  Ex.OP4  Animal  Health  certificate regarding inspection of animals dated 25.1.2014 ,  Ex.OP5  Animal  Health  certificate regarding inspection of animals/Cow dated 10.10.2013 ,  Ex.OP6 Live stock  claim  ,  Ex.OP7 post mortem report , Ex.OP8 investigation  report  and closed his evidence.
6.                  Heard. Entire record has been perused.
7.                    The OP no.2 has furnished the Animal Health  certificate vide Ex.OP4 wherein health certificate of two buffalos , issued to the complainant  is available .  The OP no.2 has also furnished copy of health certificate   issued to the complainant which is for a cow.  The OP no.2  proved copy of  post mortem report  for a cow of age approximately Six and half year  and without ear tags  vide Ex.OP7 .  Further OP no.2 has proved a letter of investigator of insurance Company mentioning that a cow has died on 12.9.2014 vide Ex.OP8. The complainant has proved a copy of cattle insurance Policy  applicable from 29.1.2014 to  28.1.2015 for two cattle insured for Rs.37,000/- and Rs.43,000/- vide Ex.C2.  The title of the said Policy is “ CATTLE INSURANCE POLICY” , implying that  the Policy does not distinguish between  Cows and buffalos .  In this Policy , age of the animal  mentioned is 6 years,  which has been insured for Rs.43,000/- .   Vide Ex.C4 the complainant has proved a copy of Post mortem report carried on 13.9.2014 ,  where dead animal is mentioned as  a cow with approximate age of Six and half years .  From the above discussion we feel that the complainant obtained an insurance Policy valid from 29.1.2014 to 28.1.2015 titled as “CATTLE INSURANCE POLICY” and paid premium of Rs.4494/- .  Under this Policy , two cattle were insured for sums of Rs.37,000/- and Rs.43,000/- .  The complainant has claimed that a cow which was got insured for Rs.43,000/- against the said Policy died on 12.9.2014 ,which is well within the validly of Policy . In the said Policy age of the cattle insured for Rs.43,000/- is mentioned as 6 years.  This age of the dead  animal almost matches with the age mentioned in the Post Mortem report vide Ex.C4 ,which is approximately six and half years.  We are of view that the Insurance Policy was for “CATTLE” . i.e  the Policy did not distinguish between cow and buffalo without drawing any distinction between them. The age of the dead animal in the insurance Policy Ex.C3 as well as well in the Post Mortem vide Ex.C4 is almost  matching with each other .  So , beyond doubt the complainant obtained insurance Policy for two animals which was valid  from 29.1.2014 to  28.1.2015 . The complainant’s one animal  

( cow) died on 12.9.2014 i.e well within coveredperiod of the Insurance Policy. The OP no.2’s plea that ear tag of the dead cowwas missing can not be taken as a sole ground for rejecting the claim of the complainant . Hence to ensurethat the insureddoes not suffer any loss due to technicalities of the insurance Company ,we are of opinion that complainant claim for his dead cow should be upheld .

8. As a corollary of out above discussion and keeping in view of the facts , the present complaint is partly allowed. OP no.2 is held liable for deficiency in service and is directed as under:-

 [a] Topay claim amount Rs.43,000/-to the complainant for dead cow as per theInsurance Policy along with interest@ 9% P.A from the date of filing of complaint within 30 days, failing which interest @ 12% P.A. shall be payable.

Compliance of the order be made by the OP no.2 within30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Failing which the complainant shall be entitled to recover the above said amount through legal process. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to pandemic of Covid-19 and paucity of staff. Copy of this order be sent to the complainant and the OPs as per rules. File be  consigned to record.

      Pronounced 16 May 2023                

                                                                      (S.K. Aggarwal)

                                                                              President

                                                                    

 

                                                                            ( Shivani Bhargava )

                                                                                       Member

    

                                                                             ( Manjit Singh Bhinder )   

                                                                                                              Member