Punjab

Sangrur

CC/691/2015

Kuldeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombard Gen.Ins.Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri S.S. Dhindsa

04 Apr 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  691

                                                Instituted on:    21.07.2015

                                                Decided on:       04.04.2016

 

 

Kuldeep Singh son of Gurjant Singh, resident of village Bhai Ki Pishore, Tehsil Lehra and District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.     ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, (RIGB) Aggarsain Chowk, Mata Modi Road, Sunam through its Branch Manager.

2.     ICICI Lombard General Insurance company Limited, SCO No.26, First Floor, Kaula Park, Sangrur.

3.     ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, No.1-5, 3^rd Floor, Kunal Tower, 88, Mall Road, Ludhiana through its Customer Service Manager 9Cattle Claim).

4.     ICICI Bank Limited, Aggarsain Chowk, Mata Modi Road, Sunam, District Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

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

For OPs.                   :       Shri GS Shergill, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Kuldeep 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 OPs by getting insured his four cows for Rs.50,000/- each by paying the requisite premium of Rs.5618/- through OP number 1 at his village Bhai Ki Pishore for the period from 21.10.2012 to 20.10.2015. The Ops issued the tags to each of the cow.  It is further averred that the complainant has been running the dairy farm in order to earn his livelihood by way of self employment. It is further averred that during the subsistence of the insurance policy the cow bearing tag number 100019287 died on 3.8.2014 due to snake bite, of which information was given to the Ops and the Ops got the post mortem conducted on the dead cow.  Thereafter, another cow bearing tag number 100019286 died on 23.10.2014 due to ketosis.  The grievance of the complainant is that despite all this and submission of all the documents to the OPs, the OPs did not settle the claim despite serving of legal notice dated 5.5.2014 on the OPs through his counsel Shri SS Dhindsa, Advocate.  It is further averred that the complainant has already repaid the loan amount to the OP number 4, bank. 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 insured claim amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OPs number 1 to 3, preliminary objections have been taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious in nature and the same is liable to be dismissed. Further it is stated that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. It is admitted that the complainant has lodged two claims and the claim under tag number 100019286 was repudiated on the ground that the ear tag was damaged and claim under tag number 100019287 was repudiated due to mismanagement of animal as the complainant did not properly feed, not take proper care and no regular treatment was given.  However, on merits, it is admitted that the complainant got insured their cattle from the OPs for an amount of Rs.50,000/- each which was duly supplied to the complainant.  It is stated in the written reply that the claim has rightly been repudiated and there is no deficiency in service at all on the part of the OPs.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 4, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false, frivolous, vague and vexatious in nature, that the complainant has filed the captioned complaint with the sole motive to gain illegally and that the complaint is not maintainable.  On merits, it is submitted that on 28.09.2012, the complainant obtained a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the OP under dairy farming and the said loan was repayable in 36 EMI of Rs.6746./- each and the complainant got insured the said cattles from OPs number 1 to 3.  The OP number 4 has no role in making the payment of the claim. As such, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of policy, Ex.C-3 copy of check list, Ex.C-4 copy of claim form, Ex.C-5 copy of treatment certificate, Ex.C-6 copy of policy, Ex.C-7 copy of check list, Ex.C-8 copy of claim form, Ex.C-9 copy of PMR, Ex.C-10 copy of treatment certificate, Ex.C-11 copy of no due certificate, Ex.C-12 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-13 copy of postal receipt, Ex.C-1 4 copy of PMR and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs number  has produced  and Ex.OP-1 copy of repudiation letter, Ex.OP-2 copy of insurance policy, Ex.OP-3 copy of terms and conditions, Ex.OP-4 copy of claim form, Ex.OP-5 copy of PMR certificate, Ex.OP-6 copy of survey report, Ex.OP-7 copy of letter, Ex.OP-8 copy of policy and terms and conditions, Ex.OP-9 copy of claim form, Ex.OP-10 copy of PMR certificate, Ex.OP-11 copy of survey report, Ex.OP-12 copy of treatment certificate, Ex.OP-13 affidavit, Ex.OP-14 copy of repudiation letter, Ex.OP-15 copy of accounts statement and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions 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 four cows in question from OPs number 1 to 3 by paying the requisite premium.  It is also not in dispute that the cow bearing tag number 100019286 died on 3.8.2014 due to snake bite and another cow bearing tag number 100019287 died on 23.10.2014 due to ketosis.  The grievance of the complainant is that the OPs have repudiated the rightful claim of the complainant on the flimsy grounds, which has not been paid even after got serving the legal notice upon the OPs.  That the claim under tag number 100019286 has been repudiated on the ground that the tag in question was in broken condition whereas the claim under tag number 100019287 was repudiated on the ground that the cow had died due to mismanagement of farm or stable.

 

7.             Ex.C-7 is the copy of claim document checklist in respect of claim of the cow bearing tag number 100019287 and Ex.C-8 is the copy of claim form for cattle insurance, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the suspected cause for death of cattle is snake bite.  Ex.C-9 is the copy of post mortem report issued by CVH Gaga, wherein it is again clearly mentioned that the death of the cow is due to snake bite.  Again Ex.C-14 is the copy of post mortem report of the cow bearing tag number 100010286, which has died of Ketosis. The stand of the OPs is that the cow in question died due to mismanagement. The reason for repudiation of the cow bearing tag number 100019287 is that the tag in question was in the broken condition, but it is not the case of the Ops that the tag in question bearing number 100019287 was not relating to the insured animal.  If the tag in question was in broken condition, then it is not fair on the part of the Ops to repudiate the claim of the complainant, as such, we feel that the claim of the cow under tag number 100019287 has wrongly been repudiated by the Op.  Now, coming to the point of repudiation of another claim of the cow bearing tag number 100019286, which is allegedly has been died due to ketosis i.e. mismanagement of the complainant.  But, the OP has not produced on record any cogent, reliable and trustworthy  documentary evidence to show that the cow died due to the mismanagement of the complainant. It is obvious that no one will be interested to die his cattle at his own.  In the present case, the fact remains and proved on record that the cow in question also died due to the subsistence of the insurance, which was insured with the Ops for Rs.50,000/-. Further Ex.OP-11 is the copy of survey report wherein it has been clearly stated that the cow died due to weakness, but it cannot be said that the weakness in the cow is attributable to the complainant and that can be due to various reasons.  In the circumstances, we feel that the claim of the cow under tag number 100019286 is also payable to the complainant.

 

8.             In the present case, it is an admitted fact of the complainant that he purchased the cows after raising a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the OPs, but the same has already been paid to the OP number 4.  Further, it is not the case of OP number 4 that any amount is outstanding against the complainant on account of the above said loan, as such, we feel that the complainant is entitled to get the claim amount at his own.

 

9.             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.

 

 

10.           In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs number 1 to 3 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- being the insurance claim on account of death of the insured two cows in question along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 21.07.2015 till its realisation.  OPs number 1 to 3 are 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.

 

11.           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.

                April 4, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member