DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 64 of 16.2.2016
Decided on: 19.4.2017
Gurmit Singh son of Sh.Balvir Singh, resident of Village Maghar Sahib, Tehsil and District Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Space No.1-5,3rd Floor Kunal Tower, 88, Mall Road, Ludhiana 141001 through its Regional Manager.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.,Building No.11, 401/402 4th Floor, New Link Road, Ma;ad(W),Mumbai through its Regional Manager.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Arun Bansal,Advocate, counsel for complainant.
Sh.Amit Gupta,Advocate, counsel for Opposite parties.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh. Gurmit Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To pay the difference of the sum assured amount i.e. Rs.20,000 alongwith interest @18% per annum w.e.f.25.7.2015, the date of death of cow till realization;
- To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of inconvenience, mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him
- To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses and to grant any other relief, which the Forum may deem fit.
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is an agriculturist and with a view to start business of dairy farming, availed loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from ICICI Bank . The ICICI Bank, in order to secure the repayment of the loan, mortgaged his land. At the same time, they also got insured his four cows and 2 buffalos vide insurance policy No.IL 100061802 for sum assured of Rs.50,000/- each. Before insurance, the cows and buffaloes were got medically examined and inspected by veterinary officer. Unfortunately, one cow bearing identification tag No.100061802 died on 25.7.2015, due to respiratory failure. Intimation in this regard was given to the OPs. immediately. He requested the OPs for the settlement of the claim on account of the death of the cow and completed all the formalities in this regard. He also submitted all the relevant documents with the O.Ps. A surveyor was appointed by the OPs, who inspected the dead cow . The O.Ps. instead of paying sum assured of Rs.50,000/- credited only an amount of Rs.30,000/-towards the claim of the dead cow. The OPs have thus indulged in mal practice and also there is unfair trade practice on their part for which he is suffering from mental agony and physical harassment.
3. On being put to notices, the OPs appeared and filed the written version taking preliminary objections that the complainant has obtained policy No.4057/78118999/00, covering the animal with tag No.IL100061802 w.e.f. 29.5.2013 to 28.5.2016, strictly subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, with benefit payable at market value of the cattle at the date of loss or Rs.50,000/-, whichever is lower. That the complainant has submitted one claim with regard to the death of cow on 27.7.2015 with the above said tag number. The postmortem was conducted by Veterinary officer, Civil Veterinary Hospital, Bhadson, District Patiala. The OPs depusted Sh. Dalinder Singh, surveyor to survey the claim who submitted his report. The claim of the complainant was duly processed as per the terms and conditions of the policy and it was observed that at the time of death, the market value of the cattle was Rs.30,000/- as the daily milk yield of said cow was reduced from 22 ltrs to 4 ltrs per day. The same was duly paid to the complainant. The OPs have reiterated the same facts on merits of the case also and after denouncing all other averments made in the complaint, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA sworn affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C9 and closed the evidence of the complainant.
The ld. counsel for the OPs tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, sworn affidavit of Meenu Sharma, Manager alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP13 and closed the evidence of the OPs.
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. The ld. counsel for the complainant submitted that he got insured his four cows and two buffaloes from the Ops for the period from 29.5.2013 to 28.5.2016 for assured sum of Rs.50,000/- each cattle. The cow bearing identification Tag No.100061802 died on 25.7.2015. On lodging of claim, regarding the death of the cow, the Ops instead of paying Rs.50,000/- had paid only Rs.30,000/-., which clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
7. On the contrary, the ld. counsel for Ops submitted that the claim of the complainant was duly processed as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was observed that at the time of death of the said cow, the daily milk yield by the said cow was reduced from 22 ltrs to 4 ltrs per day. As such the market value of said cattle was assessed for Rs.30,000/-, which was duly paid to the complainant. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8. From the certificate of insurance Ex.OP1, it is evident that the cow bearing tag No. 100061802 was duly insured with the Ops for a sum of Rs.50,000/. The Ops have averred that as the daily yield of the cow in question was reduced from 22 ltrs to 4 ltrs per day. As per terms and conditions of the policy the claim of the complainant was duly processed and claim amount of Rs.30,000/- has duly been paid to the complainant. However, the Ops have not disclosed as per which term they have paid a lesser amount i.e. Rs.30000/- instead of the assured sum of Rs.50,000/-. Although, the copy of the terms and conditions placed on record is not legible, even though, we perused the same with great difficulty and could not find mention any such condition, on the basis of which the Ops have paid Rs.30,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/-, the insured value of the cow. In this view of the matter, we hold that the Ops have, by paying the less amount than the insured value have committed deficiency in service and they are liable to pay the remaining amount of Rs.20,000/- alongwith interest, to the complainant. Accordingly we partly allow the complaint and direct the Ops in the following manner:-
- To pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @7% per annum from the date of payment of Rs.30,000/- till realization.
- To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment.
- To pay Rs.7000/- as litigation expenses.
The Ops are directed to comply the order within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which Ops shall pay interest @9% per annum on the awarded amount besides litigation costs. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:19.4.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
