DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Complaint No. CC/287/14 of 15.10.2014

                                      Decided on:         11.05.2015

Jaspal Singh son of Ajit Singh, resident of village Harpalpur, Tehsil & District Patiala.

                                                                   ….........Complainant

                                      Versus

1. ICICI Lombard Insurance Co.Ltd., Branch SCO 12, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala through its Branch Manager.
2. ICICI Bank Ltd., Branch Ajit Nagar, Near  Leela Bhawan, Patiala through its Branch Manager.

                                                                  ….........Ops

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member

Present:

For the complainant:       Sh.D.S.Behgal, Advocate

For Ops      :                     Sh.Dhiraj Puri,Advocate             

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

1. The complainant deals in the business of dairy farming so as to earn his livelihood. In order to enlarge his said business of milk dairy, the complainant had raised a loan of Rs.15lacs from ICICI Bank Limited i.e. Op no.2 on 29th May,2012, repayable in 36 installments. At the time of the sanctioning of the loan, Op no.2 offered the complainant the insurance for his cows by ICICI Lombard Insurance Co.Ltd. i.e. Op no.1, which is also the concern of Op no.2 and the employees of Op no.1 explained the benefits of the insurance policy. Accordingly the complainant got his 30 cows insured by Op no.1, Op no.2 having paid the premium amount of Rs.1,68,540/- in respect of the policies vide cheque No.85935.Before effecting the insurance, Op no.1 had got the cows medically examined and thereafter certificate of insurance as also separate tags for each cow were issued, each cow having been got insured for Rs.50000/-.
2. It is further the case of the complainant that the cow bearing tag No.19012 covered under the certificate of insurance No.100019012 valid for the period 27.6.2012 to 26.6.2015 died on 10.7.2014 at about 5PM. The intimation regarding the death of cow was given to the Op, who appointed the surveyor, who conducted the investigation and who got the postmortem examination conducted on the dead cow from Dr.Ashwani Kumar, Veterinary Officer, Veterinary Hospital, Ajrawar, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.
3. After getting the report of the postmortem, the complainant lodged the claim with the Op on 21.7.2014 alongwith relevant documents. However, the complainant received letter dated 12.8.2014 from Op having repudiated the claim of the complainant on false, frivolous and baseless grounds that the ear tag of the cow was damaged and thus, the OP disputed identity of the dead cow.
4. It is further averred by the complainant that the surveyor had personally visited the dairy farm of the complainant and duly investigated the matter, who at no point of time, raised any dispute with regard to the ear tag of the dead cow having been damaged and rather assured the complainant that he will get the insured amount from the company and that he had submitted his report. Dr.Ashwani Kumar, in the postmortem examination report disclosed the features of the cow qua the tag number and that there was no dispute with regard to the identification of the cow as the tag was in a good condition and legible. The documents provided by the veterinary doctor are public documents. Moreover, in the photographs of the dead cow the tag appeared in a fine condition and readable.
5. It is further averred by the complainant that on 5.9.2014, he filed an application through his counsel under the RTI Act before the Op having sought for the information alongwith the documents followed by reminder dated 25.9.2014 but the Op failed to furnish the information. Accordingly, it is alleged that the said act of the Op resulted into the harassment , humiliation and the mental agony experienced by him for which he is entitled to a compensation in a sum of Rs.40,000/-. Consequently, the complainant has brought this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the Op to pay him Rs.50,000/- the insured amount of the dead cow; to pay him Rs.40,000/- by way of compensation on account of the harassment, humiliation and the mental agony experienced by him and further to award him Rs.7500/- towards the costs of the complaint.
6. The complaint was initially filed against Op no.1 only but lateron on an application filed by Op no.2 namely ICICI Bank  Limited, the same was impleaded as an Op vide order dated 16.1.2015.
7. On appearance the Ops filed their written versions separately.

In the written version filed by op no.1, it has not denied having insured the cows of the complainant as per the particulars furnished by the complainant and it is alleged that each cow was insured for Rs.50000/-. The complainant was issued the certificate of insurance alongwith terms and conditions. It is further averred by this Op that after getting the information regarding the death of the cow bearing tag No.19012 , the complainant was allotted claim No.GEN000127406 and thereafter the complainant submitted the documents alongwith tag and after going through the same, it was found that the tag was damaged, which amounted to a violation of clause No.8 of the terms and conditions, which is in the following terms : “The company shall not be liable under this policy for compensating the insured for any loss or damage in the following events. Exclusions:  

“All the claims received damaged ear tags”.

The Op repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 12.8.2014.

8.      It is also the plea taken up by the Op that in case any amount is ordered to be paid by the Op, the same is payable to ICICI Bank Limited as the cattle was hypothecated with the said bank vide loan account No.K9KNL00026499302. Ultimately, after denouncing the other averments of the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

9.      In the written version filed by Op no.2, it is admitted that the complainant had raised a loan of Rs.15lac from the Op vide loan account No.K9KNL00026499302. A sum of Rs.5,57,216/- was due against the complainant as on 21.7.2014. In case any amount is ordered to be paid by Op no.1, the same is payable to the Op as the cattle was under hypothecated with the Op.

10.    It is also the plea taken up by the Op that the complainant is running a big dairy farming business and he is selling the milk on a large scale which is a commercial activity. It is denied by the Op that it is liable to pay anything to the complainant. The amount if any is payable by Op no.1.Ultimately, this Op also prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

11.    In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C16 and his counsel closed the evidence.

12.    On the other hand, on behalf of the Ops, their counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Ms. Meenu Sharma, authorized signatory of Op no.1 at Chandigarh alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP10 and closed their evidence.

13.    The parties failed to file the written arguments.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and  gone through the evidence on record.

14.    Ex.C6, is the letter dated 12.8.2014 written by Op no.1 to the complainant on the subject:      Insurance Claim: GEN000127407 under policy No.405772283306.00.000 against tag No.100019012 and informed, “On perusal of the claim submitted by you, we find that, “claim has been received damaged tag”. The said clause is reproduced hereunder:

“8.     The company shall not be liable under this policy for compensating the insured for any loss or damage in the following events;

Exclusions:         All the claims received damaged ear tags”

15.    Thus, from the aforesaid letter,Ex.C6, written by Op no.2, it would appear that the claim of the complainant was repudiated solely on the ground that the tag of the dead cow was found damaged. Ex.OP3, is the photo copy of the terms and conditions. Under the heading Claim Procedure certain conditions have been prescribed and one of the said conditions states: “No claim shall be payable if the tag is not intact at the time of death of the animal or the tag is lost and  not reported for re- tagging. We have not been able to find out the clause 8 as reproduced by Op no.1 in the written version as: “ The company shall not be liable under this policy for compensating the insured for any loss or damage in the following events: Exclusions: All the claims received damaged ear tags”.

16.    Even if , such a condition were to be there in the terms and conditions, the plea taken up by the Op in this regard is found without any basis because the tag Ex.OP4 produced by the Op is found to be very much intact and the particulars mentioned therein are clearly legible showing the tag No.100019012. It appears that the Op wanted to repudiate the genuine claim of the complainant on the basis of false and frivolous ground because it is not the plea of the Op that the identity of the dead cow of the complainant could not be established. Ex.C3 is the treatment certificate dated 11.7.2014 issued by the Veterinary Officer, Veterinary Hospital, Azrawar, Patiala in respect of the cow bearing tag No.100019012, ICICI Lombard, belonging to Sh.Jaspal Singh.Ex.C4 is the postmortem report given by Veterinary Officer, Veterinary Hospital, Ajrawar,Patiala, in which the identification marks of the cow have been given as under:

Brownish colour, Forehead: Brown, Limbs Brown, SOT Black, Udder White strips, Teats Black, Tag No.100019012 ICICI Lombard.

17.    The Op has not produced the health certificate which is got prepared by Op no.1 at the time of insuring the cattle and in which  also the features of the insured cows are recorded. We can say with certainty that the Op has withheld the health certificate intentionally because the same would have disclosed the features of the insured cow bearing tag No.100019012 as were noted by the Veterinary officer in the postmortem report, Ex.C4. It is also important to note that the complainant described the features of the dead cow in the claim form for cattle insurance Ex.C5 as; Forehead: Brown, Limbs: Brown,SOT: Black, Udder: White strips, Teats: Black and the Op has not been able to challenge the identity of the insured cattle by producing the evidence to the contrary so as to say that the dead cow was not the insured. We are of the considered view that Op no.1 has repudiated the very genuine claim of the complainant without any basis. Consequently, we accept the complaint and direct Op no.1 to pay the insured amount of the insured cattle having tag No.100019012. Admittedly the complainant had raised the loan for purchasing the  cows from op no.2 and as per the version of Op no.2 a sum of Rs.5,57,216/- was due and outstanding against the loan account No.K9KNL00026499302 of the complainant as on 21.7.2014.Op no.2 has also produced in evidence Ex.C1, the copy of the statement of account showing the said amount of Rs.5,57,216/- still due and outstanding against the complainant. Therefore, a direction is given to Op no.1 to deposit the said amount of Rs.50,000/-, the insured value of the cattle, with interest @9% per annum from the date of the repudiation of the claim i.e. 12.8.2014, in the account of the complainant maintained with Op no.2 and Op no.2 shall provide the copy of statement of account after the said amount of Rs.50,000/- being credited in the loan account of the complainant. Op no.1 shall comply the order within one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint is accepted with costs assessed at Rs.7500/- which is inclusive of the amount of compensation on account of harassment and the mental agony experienced by the complainant at the hands of Op no.1.

Pronounced

Dated:11.05 .2015

                   Sonia Bansal         Neelam Gupta                      D.R.Arora

          Member                   Member                              President