DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR
Complaint No. 356
Instituted on: 05.09.2018
Decided on: 05.04.2021
Mohanjit Singh son of Bhupinder Singh, VPO Siahar, Tehsil Ahemdgarh, Distt. Sangrur.
…. Complainant.
Versus
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Branch Manager, 2nd Floor above Hotel Hot Chop, Kaula Park Market, Sangrur.
….Opposite party
FOR THE COMPLAINANT: Shri S.S.Ratol, Advocate
FOR OPP. PARTY : Shri Darshan Gupta, Advocate.
Quorum
Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
ORDER:
Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President
FACTS
1. Shri Mohanjit Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party on the ground that the complainant hired the service of the OP by getting insured his five cows vide policy number 59094381 for the period from 2.9.2016 to 1.9.2017 by paying the requisite premium and the complainant also paid the fee to the Veterinary Surgeon for issuing health certificate. Further case of the complainant is that chip numbers were mentioned in the policy from 112225 to 112229, but the said chips were not inserted to the cows. It is further stated that the OP disclosed that inadvertently the chip numbers have been wrongly issued to policy number 59094270 to 59094275 and policy umber 590943381 and 59094382. The OP made the endorsement by mentioning the correct chip number in all the above said policies. Further case of the complainant is that the representative of OP inserted the chip umber 112232 to 112236 to the cows of the complainant instead of chip number 112225 to 112229.
2. Further case of the complainant is that cow bearing chip number 112335 suddenly died on 10.8.2017 during the subsistence of the policy and the complainant immediately intimated the OP about the death of the cow. The postmortem of the above cow was conducted by Dr. Pawan Kumar Mittal, who verified about the death of the cow. The cow was purchased by the complainant for Rs.50,000/-. Further case of the complainant is that the complainant submitted all the documents to the OP, but the claim was not settled. 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 claim amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed Rs.3210/- and has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
WRITTEN VERSION
3. In reply filed by the OP, it is stated that on the request of the complainant, five cows belonging to the complainant were insured with the OP for Rs.50,000/- each subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It is admitted further that the complainant sent intimation of death of cow along with the claim related documents alleging that cow bearing tag number 112336 died on 10.8.2017. Further it is stated that on perusal of the policy it was found that the chip number 112336 in respect of deceased cow was not covered under the policy as such the claim of the complainant was repudiated.
EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS
4. The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant got insured his five cows vide policy number 59094381 for the period from 2.9.2016 to 1.9.2017 by paying the requisite premium. The learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that chip numbers were mentioned in the policy from 112225 to 112229, but the said chips were not inserted to the cows. It is further stated that the OP disclosed that inadvertently the chip numbers have been wrongly issued to policy number 59094270 to 59094275 and policy umber 590943381 and 59094382. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the OP made the endorsement by mentioning the correct chip number in all the above said policies. Further the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the representative of OP inserted the chip umber 112232 to 112236 to the cows of the complainant instead of chip number 112225 to 112229. Further the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that cow bearing chip number 112335 suddenly died on 10.8.2017 during the subsistence of the insurance policy and the complainant immediately intimated the OP about the death of the cow. The postmortem of the above said cow was conducted by Dr. Pawan Kumar Mittal, who verified about the death of the cow. The cow was purchased by the complainant for Rs.50,000/-. Further the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant submitted all the documents to the OP, but the claim was not paid. As such, the complainant has prayed for acceptance of the complaint. settled.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has argued that the cow which was insured never died and as such has prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
7. To prove this case, Shri Mohanjit Singh complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.C-1 and has deposed as per the complaint, Ex.C-2 is no claim letter dated 8.1.2018, Ex.C-3 is endorsement slip, wherein it is mentioned that the tag was wrongly fixed, Ex.C-4 is the claim form, Ex.C-5 is the claim form of Iffco Tokio of Rs.50,000/-, Ex.C-6 is death certificate of cow and the value of the cow is mentioned as Rs.50,000/-, Ex.C-7 is post mortem report showing the value of cow as Rs.50,000/-, Ex.C-8 is claim processing note, Ex.C-9 is the bill of surveyor for Rs.3210/-, Ex.C-10 is the verification report of Dr. Pawan Kumar Mittal and Ex.C-11 is policy of OP.
8. On the other hand, the Op has produced Ex.OP-1 insurance policy, Ex.OP-2 is endorsement note, Ex.OP-3 is endorsement cattle policy, Ex.OP-4 is the claim form, Ex.OP-5 is the cattle claim brief, Ex.OP-6 is the death certificate, Ex.OP-7 is postmortem report, Ex.OP-8 is report of Dr. Pawan Kumar Mittal, Ex.OP-9 is letter of complainant, Ex.OP-10 is statement of Gurmukh Singh, Ex.OP-11 is statement of Jagdev Singh, Ex.OP-12 is the spot report along with photographs, Ex.OP-13 is the claim processing note, Ex.OP-14 is repudiation letter.
9. Rejoinder was also filed by Mohanjit Singh complainant wherein he has specifically stated that chips were not inserted in the cows and the cow bearing chip number 112336 has been died and the claim has wrongly been repudiated.
10. While going through the documents on the file, we find that the complainant got insured his five cows vide policy number 59094381 from the OP for the period from 2.9.2016 to 1.9.2017. But the cow bearing tag number 112336 died on 10.8.2017 and the postmortem of the cow was conducted by Dr. Pawan Kumar Mittal and his report is also on the file. Dr. Pawan Kumar Mittal mentioned the value of the cow as Rs.50,000/-. The complainant submitted all the documents to the Ops for settlement of the claim, but the Ops failed to pay the rightful claim to the complaiannt. As such, the Ops are deficient in rending service to the complainant.
11. In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 8.1.2018 till realization. We further direct OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. This order be complied with by the OP within a period of sixty days of its communication. A copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and there after file be consigned to record room.
Pronounced.
April 5, 2021.
(Vinod Kumar Gulati) (Jasjit Singh Bhinder)
Member President
