Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1140/2015

Bachan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Harpreet Singla

14 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                  

                                                Complaint No.  1140

                                                Instituted on:    24.09.2015

                                                Decided on:       14.07.2016

 

Bachan Singh son of Anokh Singh, resident of House No.148, Village Laddi, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     ICICI Bank Limited, Kaula Park, Sangrur, Tehsil and District Sangrur through its Branch Manager/ Authorised signatory.

2.     ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, ICICI Bank Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai through its Manager/M.D/Authorised signatory.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Harpreet Singla, Adv.

For OPs                    :       Shri G.S.Shergill, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                KC Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Bachan Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OP number 1 by raising loan for the purchase of the cows. It is further averred that the complainant purchased the cows which were got insured by OP number 1 from OP number 2 for Rs.55,500/- for the period from 9.1.2013 to 8.1.2016 and as such the cow bearing tag identification number 100038471 fell ill and died on 24.09.2014 during the subsistence of the insurance policy. The complainant informed the Ops about the sudden death of the cow and the post-mortem examination of the cow was conducted by Veterinary Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Ghabdan. It is further averred that the complainant submitted all the documents to the OPs for payment of claim, but the Ops rejected the claim of the complainant on flimsy grounds. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant the insurance claim amount of Rs.55,500/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of death of the cow till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, legal objections have been taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false, frivolous, vague, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complaint is not maintainable against the OP. On merits, it is stated that in the month of November, 2012 the complainant approached the OP for granting of the loan for dairy farming and on the request of the complainant, the OP sanctioned the amount of Rs.1,10,000/- under dairy farming loan and the said loan was repayable in 36 EMIs of Rs.3333/- each. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied. However, it is admitted that the cows were insured with the OP number 2.

 

3.             In the amended reply filed by Op number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is frivolous and vexatious one, that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. On merits, it is admitted that the cow bearing tag number 100038471 was insured with the OP and after death of the cow, the complainant intimated about the death of the cow in question to the OP. It is further stated that the OP appointed surveyor, Shri Daljinder Singh and during the survey he found that the tag was in the hand of the complainant, thereafter he submitted his report with the Op and recommended for repudiation of the claim on the ground of tag broken as well as on the ground of negligence, as such after receiving the report the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 10.11.2014.  However any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of claim form, Ex.C-3 copy of insurance policy, Ex.C-4 copy of health certificate, Ex.C-5 copy of statement of loan account, Ex.C-6 copy of PMR, Ex.C-7 copy of repudiation letter, Ex.C-8 copy of last payment receipt, Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-12 photographs and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.Op-1 copy of survey report, Ex.OP-2 copy of terms and conditions, Ex.OP-3 and Ex.OP-4 copies of photographs, Ex.OP-5 copy of loan account statement, Ex.OP-6 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             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 acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his two cows from OP number 2 by paying the requisite premium and one cow bearing tag number 100038471 died on 24.09.2014 during the subsistence of the insurance policy. It is further an admitted fact that the intimation regarding the death of the cow was given to the OPs and the complainant also submitted the requisite documents to the surveyor appointed by the Op number 2 to investigate the claim,  but the OP number 2 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the tag of the cow in question was broken one. The complainant has produced various documents on record to show that the cow died a natural death and has produced Ex.C-2 claim for cattle insurance, Ex.C-6 as post-mortem report of the Dr. Yogesh Bhardwaj and has further produced Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10 as photographs of the cow in question. We have also perused the copy of survey report Ex.OP-1, wherein the surveyor has stated that “tag broken and he felt that the cow in question is ill for the last 4-5 days’, but there is no explanation/justification in the survey report that how he felt that the cow in question is ill for the last 4-5 days, as such, we are unable to go with this contention of the investigator. It is further worth mentioning here that even the tag in question is broken one, then the claim of the complainant cannot be thrown on this ground alone, as it is clearly mentioned in the survey report that the broken tag was there.  Further the Op number 2 has not produced any sworn affidavit of any responsible officer/official to corroborate their contention in the reply as well as to support the evidence produced on record.  It is worth mentioning here that the affidavit Ex.OP-6 has only been filed on behalf of the OP number 1. In the circumstances, we feel that the Ops have miserably failed to establish on record that the cow in question died due to mismanagement of the complainant or there is any negligence on the part of the complainant. Under the circumstances, we feel that the fact remains that the cow died during the subsistence of the insurance policy and the OP number 2 wrongly repudiated the rightful claim of the complainant. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the OP number 2 is liable to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.55,500/-, the insured value of the cow.

 

7.             The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.55,500/- being the insurance claim on account of death of the insured cow in question along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 24.09.2015 till its realisation.  OP number 1 is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension and harassment and litigation expenses.

 

9.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                July 14, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                    Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member