Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/16/77

Amrit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. T.S.Chahal, Adv.

29 Aug 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. :  77 of 03.11.2016

                                Date of decision                     :      29.08.2017

 

Amrit Singh, aged about 30 years, son of Jarnail Singh, resident of Village Samrauli, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar  

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. IFFCO TOKIO, General Insurance Co. Limited, registered office: IFFCO Sadan C1, District Center Saket, New Delhi, 110017 through its Managing Director/ Manager  

2. IFFCO TOKIO, General Insurance Co. Limited, Opp. Bhatta Sahib, Gurudwara Chowk, SCO No.7, C-861/862, Main Road, Roper, Tehsil & District Rupnagar, through its Branch Manager.

                                                                               ....Opposite Parties

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                        SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. H.S. Kang, Advocate, counsel for complainant 

Sh. Amit Gupta, Adv. counsel for O.Ps.

 

ORDER

                                  MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

Sh. Amrit Singh through his counsel 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:-

i)       To pay Rs.60,000/- as insured amount on account of death of insured cow which was died on 23.8.2015, which was insured vide policy No.#:1-3H7R.JBE P400 Policy #59074238 commencement of policy from 16.4.2015 valid upto 15.4.2016.

ii)      To pay Rs.50,000/- as damages and also interest on both amounts @ 18% per annum from 23.8.2015 till realization

 

2.                     The brief facts of the case are that the complainant with the assistance of the Central Corporative Bank Limited, Rolu Majra,. District Rupnagar had purchased a cow and got insured the same with the OPs for the period from 16.04.2015 to 15.04.2016 vide insurance No. 1-3H7R.JBE P400, Policy No. 59074238. The said insured cow fell sick and ultimately died on 23.08.2015. He accordingly, informed the OPs and at their instance, postmortem of the said cow was conducted by the veterinary doctor. Thereafter, he lodged the claim with the O.Ps. and also submitted all the requisite documents. But the O.Ps. vide letter dated 10.12.2015, informed him that due to non submission of visible photographs with visible tag number and spot visit report, they have closed his claim as “ No Claim”. This act of the O.Ps. amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.

3.              On being put to the notice, the O.Ps. have filed written version taking preliminary objection; that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form. On  merits, it is stated that the cow in question was insured with the O.Ps. vide policy No.59078236 for the period from 16.4.2015 to 15.4.2016 and a tag bearing No.35609000329096 was affixed for identification purpose. The complainant intimated about the death of the cow and thereafter submitted the claim form, post mortem certificate, veterinary certificate. While processing the claim, it was found that the complainant had not submitted the visible photographs with visible tag number and spot visit report. They intimated the complainant vide letter dated 1.11.2015 and 18.11.2015, to provide the same, so that the claim lodged by the complainant could be processed, but he failed to submit the same. They left with no other option but to close the claim as “No Claim” and intimated the complainant vide letter dated 10.12.2015. They have neither committed any deficiency in service nor indulged into any unfair trade practice. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal thereof.

4.              On being called upon to do so, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.Ps. has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Vimal Kumar, Manager Ex.OP1 along with documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP11 and closed the evidence.  

5.              We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

6.              From the copy of cattle insurance policy schedule Ex.C1/OP2, it is evident that the O.Ps. issued an insurance policy in the name of complainant, for a cow of breed, HF Cross, bearing Tag No. RFID#/Manual Tag # 35609000329096 for a sum assured value of Rs.60000/-, for the period from 16.4.2015 to 15.4.2016. From the Veterinary Certificate cum Post Mortem Report annexed along with the claim form Ex.C3, it is evident that the veterinary doctor has given the answer in affirmative to the question  No.7:- Was the carcass matched and identified with the particulars mentioned in the policy?. He has also certified that the cow died on 23.8.2015, was of the complainant. From the said certificate, it is established that the dead cow was the one, which was insured with the O.Ps. No doubt, the tag is affixed for the purpose of identification of the insured animal but the same cannot be made sole criterion for identification of the animal. In the present case, the identity of the animal, which had died, is established by the other reliable evidence placed on record. Even otherwise, after getting the information from the complainant regarding the death of the cow, it was the bounden duty of the insurance company to send its official/surveyor to visit the spot to verify as to whether the dead cow was insured with the insurance company or not and the said official/surveyor was duty bound to submit the spot survey report and the photographs with the insurance company. Taking all these facts into consideration, we are of the view that the O.Ps. were not justified in closing the claim of the complainant as “No Claim”, for want of visible photographs with visible tag and spot survey report. Thus, we hold that the O.Ps are liable to indemnify the complainant for the loss suffered by the complainant due to the death of his insured cow. They are also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment caused to him along with litigation expenses.

 

7.              In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the O.Ps. in the following manner:-

          1.       To pay Rs. 60,000/-  (Insured amount) along with interest @                        7% per annum w.e.f. 10.12.2015, (the date on which the O.Ps.                     closed the claim of the complainant as “No Claim”)

      2.           To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and                     physical harassment suffered by the complainant.

      3.           To pay Rs.5000/ - as litigation cost.

          The O.Ps. are further directed to comply with the said order within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

8.       The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties    forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be          indexed and consigned to Record Room.

 

                    ANNOUNCED                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

                    Dated .29.08.2017                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                     (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                                        MEMBER