Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/800

Jasvir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Reliance General Ins.Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Satkaran Singh

18 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 800 of 25.11.2014

Date of Decision            :   18.08.2015

 

Jasbir Singh son of Sh.Mohan Singh, resident of VPO Chajjawal, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana. 

….. Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.M/s Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., The Mall Surya Tower, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.

2.UCO Bank, Branch Roomi, District Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.

..…Opposite parties

 

 

                             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER

MS.BABITA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :         Sh.Satkaran Singh, Advocate

For OP1                           :       Sh.Manoj Kumar, Advocate proxy Counsel for 

                                                Sh.G.S.Kalyan, Advocate.

 For OP2                        :         Sh.Mohit Kumar Goel, Advocate

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Sh.Jasvir Singh filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) against the OPs, by alleging that he purchased one insurance policy No.2001333012000499 from OP1 for insuring his buffalo, which he purchased after contracting loan from Op2. That buffalo was insured for an amount of Rs.40,000/-. Said buffalo fell ill and expired on 4.9.2013. Intimation to OP1 regarding this death was submitted. Postmortem of said buffalo was got conducted from Dr.Ravinder Singh on 4.9.2013. Thereafter, complainant submitted all the documents for getting claim with OP2 on 17.9.2013. Complainant had been approaching Ops with request for sanction of the claim, but to no effect. Complainant claims to be living in penury and has suffered due to death of buffalo, which he purchased with hard earned money. Legal notice dated 5.8.2014 through counsel was got served upon OPs by the complainant, but to no effect except that of hearing false excuses. Compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of deficiency in services as well as for mental tension and agony sought. Litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/- as well as interest also claimed.

2.                          In reply submitted by OP1, it is claimed that address for any further communication may be noted as Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., 4^th Floor, Chintamani Avenue, Off Western Express Highway, Near Virwani Industrial Estate Goregaon (East) Mumbai-400063. It is claimed that petition is not maintainable; complainant has no cause of action; complainant has not approached  the Court with clean hands. OP1 entertained, registered and processed the claim and thereafter, sent letters dated 19.12.2013, 29.12.2013 and 13.01.2014 for calling upon the complainant to supply the original ear tag for expeditious disposal of the claim. However, complainant failed to supply the original ear tag to  OP1, due to which, it closed the claim case file of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP1. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied.

3.                In separate written statement filed by OP2, it is pleaded interalia as if complaint being based on false allegations not maintainable; complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; OP2 is not a necessary party because the dispute is inter-se between the complainant and OP1. Complainant has no cause of action. Admittedly, the complainant approached OP2 for a Dairy Loan for purchase of Cattle head and thereafter, loan of Rs.40,000/- was sanctioned in his favour in December, 2010. The purchased buffalo was insured with OP1. Admittedly, death of buffalo took place on 4.9.2013 and thereafter, complainant submitted claim form, postmortem report and certificate of Veterinary Doctor to OP1 on 17.9.2013. Documents submitted by the complainant with OP2 were forwarded to OP1 for processing the claim vide letter dated 17.09.2013. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied.

4.                Complainant to prove his case tendered his affidavit Ex.CA alongwith documents EX.C1 to Ex.C8 and then closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for the OP1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Amit Chawla, Deputy Manager(Legal) of OP1 and tendered documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R12 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.                 Similarly, Sh.Ramchander Singh, Branch Manager of OP2 tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.RA alongwith documents Ex.R13 to Ex.R16 and thereafter, closed the evidence of OP2.

7.                          Written arguments submitted by OP1 alone. It is not submitted by the complainant and OP2. Oral arguments addressed and were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

8.                Admittedly, buffalo in question was purchased after contracting loan by the complainant from OP2 and same was got insured with OP1. Death of that buffalo took place on 4.9.2013 admittedly. Thereafter, intimation Ex.R7 regarding death of the buffalo was submitted by the complainant with OP2, who forwarded the claim documents to OP1 for processing and settlement. Ex.R13=Ex.C5=Ex.R6 is the letter sent by OP2 to OP1 for forwarding the insurance claim documents. Claim Form Ex.R14=Ex.C7 alongwith Veterinary Certificate Ex.R15=Ex.C8=Ex.R11 and copies of postmortem report Ex.R16=Ex.R10 were the documents, which were forwarded by OP2 to OP1 for processing the claim. OP1 sent letters Ex.R2 to Ex.R5 on 28.01.2014, 13.01.2014, 29.12.2013 and 19.12.2013 respectively for calling upon the complainant and OP2 to supply the original ear tag within 15 days. It was disclosed through Ex.R2 to Ex.R5 each that supply of the original ear tag is mandatory requirement for processing the claim. Through all these aforesaid letters, it was disclosed to the complainant as well as OP2 that in case, response not received within 8 weeks, then claim would be considered as closed. Despite these reminders, original ear tag was not provided and as such, fault lay with the complainant in not complying with terms and conditions of Cattle Insurance Policy contained in Ex.R12.

9.                Condition No.3 of second page of Ex.R12 reads as under:-

“No claim in respect of death of animal/s covered under the policy shall be entertained unless the ear tag/s in respect of animal/s is/are surrendered to the Company. In the event of loss of ear tag, re-tagging shall be done immediately after the loss of ear tag, at insured’s own cost and the re-tagging certificate shall be sent to the Company”.

10.              Perusal of above said condition reveals that claim in respect of death of animal covered under the policy will not be entertained unless the ear tag of the concerned animal surrendered to the insurance company. In case loss of ear tag takes place, than re-tagging has to be got done immediately by the insured at his own cost. Sending of the re-tagging certificate to OP1 is also the requirement of terms and conditions of the policy. It is not the case of complainant that loss of the original ear tag of the insured buffalo has taken place. So, virtually the necessary condition of submission of original ear tag has not been complied with by the complainant himself and as such, repudiation of claim is quite appropriate, being in consonance with the condition No.3 of Ex.R12 pointed above. So much so the ear tag number of the buffalo, whose postmortem was got conducted from the Veterinary Doctor has not been mentioned in the Veterinary Certificate or postmortem reports, copies of which are produced on record as Ex.C8=Ex.R10=Ex.R11=Ex.R15 and Ex.R16. The column of ear tag is kept blank in each of the produced copies of postmortem reports. In the absence of mentioning of the ear tag number of the buffalo, whose postmortem was got conducted, it has to be held that identity of the insured buffalo covered by the terms and conditions of the insurance schedule Ex.R1 or Ex.R12 not established. So, virtually the complainant has failed to establish that post mortemed buffalo was the one concerning which insurance was obtained by complainant.

11.              As per law laid down in a case titled as Hari Chand Goel vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited-2012(1)CLT-380(H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla), in case, complainant failed to deposit ear tag of insured cow with the insurance company, then the claim of the complainant liable to be justifiably repudiated, particularly when the policy conditions clearly provides for ‘No Tag No Claim’. Same is the position in this case before us and as such, claim of the complainant rightly repudiated by OP1.

12.              In view of above observations, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

13.              Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, the present complaint merits dismissal and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of this order be made available to the parties free of costs.

14.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 

 (Babita)                                  (Sat Paul Garg)                            (G.K.Dhir)

 Member                                   Member                                       President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:18.08.2015

Gurpreet Sharma.