Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/27/2014

Jasveer Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh MPS Batra

01 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No. 27 of 2014

                                                    Date of institution : 24.02.2014                                           Date of decision    : 01.04.2015

Jasveer Singh S/o Sucha Singh R/o village Klour, Tehsil Bassi Pathanan, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. ICICI Bank, Opposite BZSFC Public School, Jyoti Saroop Mour, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab through its Manager.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Space No.1-5, 3^rd Floor, Kunal Tower,88, Mall Road, Ludhiana, Punjab through its Manager.

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.                                           

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.                                 

Smt. Veena Chahal, Member.

Present : Sh.J.P.S.Batra,counsel for the complainant.                                                 Sh.Sunil Gupta, counsel for OP no.1.                                                     Sh.Vinay Sood,counsel for OP no.2.

 

ORDER

By Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

            Complainant Jasveer Singh R/o Village Klour, Tehsil Bassi Pathanan District Fatehgarh Sahib has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties ( hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 12-14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.                   Under the persuasion of OP no.1, the complainant had taken loan for buying the buffaloes and insured the buffaloes with OP no.2 having taken the cattle insurance policy No.4057/72283306/00 for the period from 23.9.2012 to 22.9.2015 and having paid an amount of Rs.22,472/- being the total premium amount of the insurance. The value of the cattle was assessed as Rs.50,000/-. The ear tag/token No.100018585 was also issued by the OPs to the insured buffalo.

3.                   The insured buffalo of the complainant had fallen ill on 22.11.2013. The buffalo was got treated from the veterinary doctor of village Nandpur Kalour, who examined the buffalo and given the treatment on 22.11.2013, 23.11.2013 and 24.11.2013 but the buffalo died on 24.11.2013 at 6:30 PM. Intimation to this effect was given to the OPs. The doctor/veterinary officer, Civil Hospital, Nandpur Kalour conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the buffalo and also taken the photographs of the carcass. The OPs after completing the formalities regarding the claim have also taken into custody the ear tag/token number provided to the buffalo. The complainant received a letter dated 31.12.2013 from OP No.2 regarding the non settlement of the claim having mentioned that Exclusion Clause, “Death due to mismanagement of Farm or stable”. Thus there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint for a direction to the OPs to pay the sum insured of the buffalo i.e. Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest,Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.20,000/- as damages.

4.                   Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs who appeared and filed their separate written version.

5.                   In the written reply filed by OP no.1 it is averred that it has not suggested the complainant to take the loan for buying the buffalo rather in the month of August, 2012 the complainant himself approached OP No.1 for getting the loan for dairy farming and loan was sanctioned to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant under dairy farming and the same was repayable in 36 equal monthly installment of Rs.6650/-. However, The insurance of the cattle was done by op no.2 for the period from 23.9.2012 to 22.09.2015 vide cover note No.100018 and as such the claim was to be paid by OP no.2. There is no deficiency of service on the part of OP no.1.After denouncing all other averments made in the complaint, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

6.                   Similarly in the written reply filed by OP no.2 it is averred that the cattle died within 1 ¾ of the insurance due to the negligence of the complainant by “Mismanagement of farm or stable” in violation of the clause 8 of the insurance policy.  It is admitted that on receipt of the intimation the matter was investigated. The postmortem was conducted on the dead animal on 25.11.2013 and as per the report of the postmortem the animal died due to TRP with cardiac damage as the animal had swallowed iron. The repudiation of the claim, vide letter dated 31.12.2013, is admitted. It is denied that the value of the dead animal is Rs.50,000/-. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and it is prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

7.                   In order to prove his case, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.C1, affidavit of the complainant,Ex.C2 affidavit of Sarab Preet Singh, Ex.C3 copy of repudiation letter dated 31.12.2013,Ex.C4 copy of certificate of insurance and closed the evidence.

8.                   On the other hand, on behalf of OP no.1, its counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OP1/1 affidavit of Sh.Jogeshwar Singh, authorized signatory of ICICI Bank,Ex.OP1/2 copy of loan account statement and closed the evidence.

9.                   Similarly on behalf of OP No.2, its counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OP2/1 affidavit of Ms Meenu Sharma , Manager Legal,Ex.OP2/2 copy of certificate of insurance,Ex.OP2/3 copy of repudiation letter dated 31.12.2013,Ex.OP2/4 copy of postmortem certificate,Ex.OP2/5 copy of surveyor report,Ex.OP2/6 copy of treatment certificate and closed the evidence.

10.                 The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the claim of the deceased buffalo was repudiated in an arbitrarily manner by the OPs by stating “Mismanagement of farm or stable”. The ld. counsel stated that as per Ex-OP2/2 i.e terms and conditions of the policy under exclusion clause the meaning of “Death due to mismanagement of farm or state(if animal is not treated by Govt. Vet doctor/if animal is not treated, if sickness is more than 3 days)”.The ld. counsel argued that it is evident from the EX-OP2/4 i.e Post- mortem Certificate that the said buffalo of the complainant was treated by a Veterinary Officer of Government and Ex-OP2/6 i.e Treatment certificate clearly proves that adequate treatment was given to the deceased animal. The ld, counsel also pleaded that it has been admitted by the OP no.2 that the claim was repudiated due to Exclusions clause. The ld. counsel also pleaded that no loan amount was due towards OP no.1 as the complainant had paid all the EMI’s and only an amount of Rs.322 was pending in January which had already been cleared. The ld. counsel made a submission that it is evident from the exclusions clause that the claim has been wrongly rejected by OP No.2 .

11.                 On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP no.1 stated that the loan was sanctioned on the request of the complainant and the OP no.1 has no role in repudiation of the claim. He submitted that the OP no.1 is only concerned with the recovery of loan amount.

12.                 On the other hand the ld. counsel for the OP no.2 has stated that the said claim was rightly repudiated as per exclusion clause “Death due to mismanagement of farm or state” as the said animal died due to swallowing of iron as it is evident from the Ex-OP2/6 i.e Treatment Certificate. The ld. counsel argued that the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the Policy therefore the present complaint deserves to be dismissed.

13.                 After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties and the oral arguments and written submissions, we find that there is force in the plea of the Ld. Counsel for the complainant. After going through the Ex-OP2/2 terms and condition exclusion clause the same is reproduced below:

“Death due to mismanagement of farm or state (if animal is not treated by Govt. Vet doctor/if animal is not treated, if sickness is more than 3 days)”

From the perusal of the aforesaid clause, we are of the opinion that the said buffalo of the complainant was treated by a Government Vet doctor as the same is evident from EX-OP2/4 i.e Post- mortem Certificate and Ex-OP2/6 i.e Treatment Certificate wherein it is mentioned as “For 22.11.13 to 24.11.13 treatment done for 3 Days”. The Member Sarpanch has also supported the plea of the complainant that the said buffalo was treated by a Government Vet Doctor and the treatment lasted for 3 Days i.e Ex.C2.

14.                 Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion and submissions made by the ld.counsel for the complainant we find that the OP No. 2 has committed deficiency of service by not settling the claim of dead buffalo of the complainant, hence we accept the present complaint against OP no.2. However in case any loan amount is pending against the complainant the OP no.1 is at liberty to recover the same by following due process of law. We direct the opposite party no.2 to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as per the insurance policy of the life risk of the deceased buffalo. The complainant is held entitled for a sum of Rs.5,500/- on account of compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.3,500/- as litigation cost. The amount should be paid within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order otherwise interest of 9% will be levied till its realization.

15.                 The arguments on the complaint were heard on 27.03.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:01.04.2015

(A.P.S.Rajput)                           President

 

  (Veena Chahal)                            Member