New Complaint No.236 of 2023.

                                                       Date of Institution: 26.10.2023.

                                                      Old Complaint No: 345 of 2018.

                                                      Date of Institution: 20.08.2018.

                                                      Date of order:10.11.2023.

Rajinder Kumar Son of Mohinder Pal, resident of Village Punder, Near Railway Phatak, Bhullar Road, Batala, District Gurdspur.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     .....Complainant.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

                                                VERSUS

1.       Indian Bank, Qadian Chungi, Batala, District Gurdaspur, through its Branch Manager.

2.       M/s United India Insurance Company Limited, SCF-174, Jalandhar Road, Batala, through its Branch Manager.                                                                                

                                                                                                                            ….Opposite parties.

          Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Rohit Mahajan, Advocate.

    For the Opposite Party No.1: Sh.Vikas Sharma, Advocate.  

    For the Opposite Party No.2: Sh.Sandeep Ohri, Advocate.  

Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.

ORDER

Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.

          Rajinder Kumar, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Indian Bank Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).

2.       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant took a loan of Rs.70,000/- for the purchase of Cow and the complainant is having A/c No.6512721938 with the OP No. 1 Bank. It is pleaded that at the time of sanction of the loan, the OP No. 1 asked the complainant that there is necessity to insure the said Cow as per the rules and regulations of the bank and the complainant got insured the said Cow from the OP No. 2 through the OP No. 1 for Rs.70,000/- and the OP No. 2 issued Policy vide Policy No. 200204716P118510478 for the period from 27.03.2017  to 26.03.2018 to the complainant and in the said policy, it is clear that there is Agent name of the OP No. 1 for the above said policy. It is further pleaded that at the time of insurance, the complainant also got the Fitness Certificate of the said Cow from Dr. Ashok Kumar, B.V. Sc. & AH, Senior Veterinary Consultant, Punjab Veterinary Council Regd. No.1285. It is further pleaded that at the time of insurance of the said Cow, and the OP No. 1 debited the premium amount from the account of the complainant. It is further pleaded that after getting the insurance, the complainant requested many times to the respondents to affix the Ear tag to the cow but they asked the complainant that there is no necessity to affix the tag on the cow and the policy of the said cow is sufficient. It is further pleaded that unluckily the above mentioned cow of the complainant expired / died on 16.08.2017 and in this respect, the complainant moved an application dated 17.08.2017 to the OP No.1 and thereafter, the post mortem of the said cow took place on 18.08.2017 by Veterinary Officer, C.V.H. Mullianwal, Batala. It is further pleaded that thereafter the complainant fulfilled all the formalities as per the demand of the opposite parties from time to time and also written various letters to the OP No. 2 and also approached the OP No. 2 for the claim of the cow against the above mentioned Insurance policy. It is alleged that ultimately on 02.01.2018, the OP No. 2 rejected the claim of the complainant on the alleged ground that there is no Ear Tag of Animal at the time of death. It is further pleaded that OP No. 2 was full in knowledge that they did not issue any Ear Tag or affix Tag in the ear of the said cow of the complainant. It is further alleged that the said alleged plea taken by the OP No. 2 is absolutely null and void, inoperative,  ineffective, false, frivolous, baseless, imaginary and has been made in order to not to issue claim to the complainant. It is further pleaded that from the Fitness Certificate, Insurance Policy and Postmortem report of the said cow, it is clear that the deceased cow is one and the same. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

          On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.1,45,000/- i.e. Rs.70,000/- as Insurance Claim alongwith benefits and Rs.75,000/- as damages by way of mental agony, interest and harassment and litigation expenses etc. alongwith future interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its actual realization of the amount to the complainant, in the interest of justice and fair play.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in the present form and there is no cause of action has accrued to the complainant against the answering opposite party for filing the present complaint. It is pleaded that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and filed the present false complaint by concocting a false story, and dragged the answering opposite party in false litigation, as such the complainant is liable to be burdened with special costs. It is further pleaded that infact, under the garb of present complaint, the complainant intends to get insurance of uninsured cow, for which the complainant cannot be allowed. It is further pleaded that the complainant availed loan of Rs.1 Lac from the OP No. 1 for the purchase of cows and as per the bank policy the livestock is to be insured, hence the bank facilitates the insurance of the livestock purchase. It is further pleaded that subsequently the cow died and the complainant filed claim for the deceased cow with insurance company i.e. OP No. 2 the claim was returned / rejected by the OP No. 2 as the cow regarding which the complainant is seeking compensation was not insured. It is further pleaded that the insurance policy mentioned in this complaint pertains to another cow which is still alive. It is further pleaded that  complainant submitted claim on account of death of uninsured cow in a fraudulent and deceitful manner by furnishing insurance policy of another cow which is still alive. It is further pleaded that the documents furnished by the complainant were found to be false and forged one which were pertaining to another cow, which is still alive, and as such his claim has rightly been rejected by the OP No. 2. It is further pleaded that the OP No. 1 is only to facilitate the insurance, the matter of filing claim and processing the same is between the complainant and OP No. 2. It is further pleaded that therefore, opposite party No. 1 has no role in settlement of the claim. It is further pleaded that the complainant is taking undue advantage as he wants to get benefit of uninsured cow by furnishing particulars of another cow which is insured and still alive, for which the complainant cannot be allowed.

          On merits, the opposite party No.1 have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

4.       Upon notice, the opposite party No.2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint, that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint, that the complaint is not legally maintainable and there is no deficiency in services on the part of the answering opposite party and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is pleaded that the claim has been filed and the investigation has been conducted by Sh. Balwinderjit Singh Bhinder in the present case and during investigation it was found that there was no Ear tag No.16208 in ear of the animal at the time of death. It is further pleaded that in additional as per policy terms and conditions tag should be surrendered at the time of the claim otherwise it will be treated as no tag no claim. It is further pleaded that the claim filed by the complainant has been made as no claim vide letter dated 02.01.2018. It is further pleaded that there is no liability of the insurance company. It is further pleaded that even otherwise if this Ld. Commission comes to the conclusion that there is any liability of the insurance company then, in that case it is only as per terms and conditions of the policy. It is further pleaded that the ear tag has been duly affixed at that time. No letter has been attached by the complainant with this complaint to show that any request has been made for affixing the tag and this fact clearly shows that the complainant is making false excuses. It is pertinent to mention here that the tag has been affixed to identify the cow. It is further pleaded that without tag it is not possible to identify the fact that the cow which was expired was the same one which was insured by the answering opposite party. It is further pleaded that as already stated that the investigation has been done by Sh. Balwinderjit Singh Bhinder and as per his report no tag was found in the ear of animal and due to which the claim has been made as no claim. It is further pleaded that the claim has been repudiated as per the terms and conditions of the policy.

          On merits, the opposite party No.2 have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5.       Learned counsel for the complainant has filed an affidavit of Rajinder Kumar, (Complainant) alongwith other documents as Ex.C1 to Ex.C-8.

6.       Learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Santokh Singh, (Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Qadian Chungi, Batala, Gurdaspur) as Ex.OP-1/1 alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-1/2 to Ex.OP-1/11 alongwith reply.

7.       Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Jai Krishan, (Divisional Manager, United India Ins. Co. Ltd., Pathankot) as Ex.OP-2/1 alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-2/2 to Ex.OP-2/8 alongwith reply.

8.       Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

9.       Written arguments filed by the opposite party No.1 but not filed by the complainant and opposite party No.2.

10.     Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant had obtained loan from opposite party No.1 for purchasing of cow and the said cow was insured from opposite party No.2. It is further argued that during the continuation of policy of insurance, the insured cow died on 16.08.2017 and application was moved to opposite party No.1 and the postmortem on the dead body of the cow was conducted on 18.08.2017 by Veterinary Officer, C.V.H. Mullianwal, Batala. It is further argued that inspite of having completed all the formalities, the opposite party No.2 repudiated the clam lodged by the complainant with false and frivolous excuses.

11.     On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 has argued that on the instructions of this Commission opposite party No.1 has issued No Objection Certificate to the complainant as complainant has returned the entire loan amount to the Bank and as such complaint against opposite party No.1 has become infructuous.

12.     Counsel for the opposite party No.2 has argued that on receiving intimation investigation of the case was got conducted from Mr. Balwinderjit Singh Bhinder who submitted his report that there was no tag in the ear of the dead animal and as such claim was repudiated as No Tag no claim policy.

13.     We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record.

14.     It is admitted fact that complainant had obtained loan from opposite party No.1. It is further admitted fact that the said cow for which loan was obtained by the complainant was insured with opposite party No.2 w.e.f. 27.03.2017 to 26.03.2018. It is further admitted fact that one of the cow died on 16.08.2017. It is further admitted fact that claim lodged by the complainant has been repudiated by the insurance company i.e. opposite party No.2 on the ground of no tag, no claim. The issue for adjudication before this Commission is whether the act of opposite party No.2 regarding repudiation of claim on account of non-availability of tag is justified or not.

15.     To prove the case counsel for the complainant has placed on record copy of policy Ex.C1, copy of fitness certificate Ex.C2, copy of postmortem report Ex.C3, copy of intimation letter Ex.C4, copies of letter Ex.C5 and Ex.C6, copy of letter dated 21.12.2017 Ex.C7 and copy of repudiation letter Ex.C8 whereas counsel for the opposite party No.1 has placed on record affidavit of Santokh Singh Ex.OP-1/1, copy of sanctioned ticket Ex.OP-1/2, copy of application Ex.OP-1/3, copy of promissory note Ex.OP-1/4, copies of disposal of proceeds letter Ex.OP-1/5 and Ex.OP-1/6, copy of loan agreement Ex.OP-1/7, copy of guarantor form Ex.OP-1/8, copy of agreement of guarantor Ex.OP-1/9 and copies of policy of insurance Ex.OP-1/10 and Ex.OP-1/11. Counsel for the opposite party No.2 has placed on record copy of report of investigator Ex.OP-2/2, copy of statement of witness Rajinder Kumar Ex.OP-2/3, copy of statement of Samual Masih Ex.OP-2/4, copy of statement of doctor Sikandar Singh Ex.OP-2/5, copy of statement of Rajinder Kumar Ex.OP-2/6, copy of extract of register Ex.OP-2/7 and copy of statement of Santokh Singh Ex.OP-2/8.

16.     Perusal of file shows that during the course of arguments counsel for the opposite party No.1 has conceded that opposite party No.1 has issued No Objection Certificate to the complainant on 09.11.2023 and security documents has been returned to the complainant and as such complaint against opposite party No.1 has become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed.

17.     The opposite party No.2 has relied upon the report of investigator Balwinderjit Singh Bhinder Ex.OP-2/2 as per which the investigator has claimed that the tag was missing on the dead body of the cow and even investigator found that there was no hole in the ear of the cow. Meaning thereby that some other cow had died which was not insured and the complainant has lodged claim in respect of un-insured cow. Except report of investigator Ex.OP-2/2, the opposite party No.2 has not placed on record any document that some other cow died which was not insured. Even the opposite party No.2 has failed to place on record photographs of the cow when cow was insured and the photos clicked by the investigator at the time of his alleged visit. Perusal of report of investigator further reveals that Dimple Kumar Nayyar AOD of the opposite party No.2 was advised for tagging the insured cattle and the investigator has further given opinion that the complainant was having only two cows and he found the second cow alive at the spot and was tagged by D.K.Nayyar vide tag No.16207 and the said tag was in brand new condition. However, tag of dead cow No.16208 was in mutilated condition and it is observed that D.K.Nayyar had not tagged both the cattle at the time of insurance and he tagged alive animal after death of other insured cow and handed over tag No.16208 to the complainant by hand after locking, it instead of putting the tag in the ear of the cow.  So, from the above discussion and report of investigator it is proved that it is clear cut negligence on the part of officials of opposite party No.2 and Mr.D.K.Nayyar who failed to tag the animal which was insured. Moreover, investigator has admitted this fact in his report that dead cow was infact insured and both the tags were lying with Mr.D.K.Nayyar who handed over tag No.16208 to the complainant after the death of the insured cow. More over the investigator has not pointed out any discrepancy regarding identity of dead cow on the basis of features of cow given in fitness certificate Ex C1 and features given in post mortem report Ex C3.  It is noticed in the present case the high handedness on the part of opposite party No.2 and the manner in which they are working, collecting premium and later on declining the claims of the consumers by relying on flimsy grounds and without application of mind. The report of the investigator is further silent regarding the identity of the cow which is fully established from the fitness certificate and postmortem report. Moreover, the tag is only affixed for identifying the animal and in the present case when the identity of the dead animal is fully established and has further admitted by the investigator in his report and investigator has further admitted fault on the part of Mr.D.K. Nayyar for having failed to tag both insured animal, as such we have no hesitation in holding that opposite party No.2 was deficient in service. From the perusal of copies of insurance policies Ex.OP-10 and Ex.OP-11 it was revealed that both the cows owned by the complainant were insured and the investigator has also established that complainant was having only two cows as such the plea of opposite party No.2 that cow which died was not insured is itself falsified.

18.     It is generally seen that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. In similar set of facts the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt.Usha Yadav & Others 2008(3) RCR (Civil) Page 111 went on to hold as under:-

          "It seems that the insurance companies are only interested in   earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline         claims. All conditions which generally are hidden, need to be      simplified so that these are easily understood by a person at    the     time of buying any policy. The Insurance Companies in such cases   rely upon clauses of the agreement, which a           person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy, Insurance Company also directed to pay costs of Rs.5000/- for luxury litigation, being rich".

From the above discussion we hold that repudiation of claim by opposite party No.2 amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

19.     We have placed reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttarakhand, Dehradun in First Appeal No.258/2011 in case titled as The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Sh.Prem Ram wherein in paras No.7 and 8 it is held as under:-

          7. "The tag is only for the identity of the animal and if the       identity of the animal which had died, is established by the other reliable evidence on record, it can not be said that the           animal which had died, was not the insured one".

          8."In the said case, the goats were stamped in the presence of the veterinary doctor. The goats died due to disease. The postmortem was carried out in the presence of the veterinary           doctor. The claim preferred by the complainant was       repudiated by the insurer on the ground that tags were not        found in the ears of goats. It was held that the tag is only for   the identity of the animal and when the identity of the animal        is otherwise established, non-production of the tag is immaterial". 

20.     We are of the view that it was the duty of the officials of the opposite party No.2 to have photographed the cow at the time of issuance of policy of insurance and the tag affixation procedure was required to be photographed and the officials of opposite party No.2 should ensure that tag has infact been affixed in the ear of the insured cow properly and since in the present case, there is no record as to where opposite party No.2 photographed the cow at the time of issuance of policy of insurance. Out of the entire record and evidence it has come out that at the time of issuance of policy of insurance opposite party No.2 issued policy total un-professional manner without inspection of the cow and no one from the office of opposite party No.2 insured that tag was infact got affixed in the ear of the cow by the concerned official and since no tag is proved to have got affixed by officials of opposite party No.2 and as such after death of the cow the opposite party No.2 cannot deny the claim with the excuse that tag was missing from the ear of the cow. Even the bare perusal of the report of the investigator shows that the investigator admits the death of insured cow, and found fault with Mr.DK Nayyar who failed to get the both the insured cows taged. More over the opposite party No.2 has not placed on record any document as to what action has been taken against Mr. D K Nayyar who failed to perform his duty for which the present complainant has to suffer agony for undergoing uncalled for litigation. Accordingly, repudiation of claim by opposite party No.2 is totally unjustified and amounts to deficiency in service.

21.     Accordingly present complaint is partly allowed and opposite party No.2 is directed to pay the sum assured to the complainant as per the policy of insurance Ex.C1 alogwith interest @ 9% P.A. w.e.f 02-01-2018 date of repudiation till realization within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order. Opposite party No.2 is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment and costs of litigation      

22.      The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

23.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.  

                                         (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                         President   

Announced:                                          (B.S.Matharu)

Nov. 10, 2023                                               Member

*YP*