BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

FORUM, MOGA.

Complaint No.09 of 2015

                                                                   Instituted On: 22.01.2015

Decided On: 06.05.2015

Irvindeep Singh aged 32 years son of Sh. Gurmej Singh, resident of Village Ghalouti, Post Office Kot Ise Khan, Tehsil Dharamkot, District Moga.

……..Complainant

Versus

1.          M/S. United India Insurance Company Limited, SCO 72, Phase 9, Mohali through its Manager.

2.     Sh. Gurpreet Singh Jassal, agent resident of Dharamkot, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Kamboan Da Agwarh, Near Kothi Bunty Commission Agent, Dharamkot.

3.       Veterinary Officer, Animal Civil Hospital, Moga.

………Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

                                                                   ****

Coram:       Sh.S.S.Panesar, President

                   Smt Vinod Bala, Member

                  Smt Bhupinder Kaur

C.C.No. 09 of 2015                          //2//

Present:      Sh Jagdish Bawa, Advocate counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh. Pawan Kumar Sharma , Advocate, counsel for OP No.1

                   Opposite party Nos.2 and 3- Ex-parte.

ORDER

(S.S.Panesar, President)

                  Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) against the United India Insurance Company Limited, SCO 72, Phase 9, Mohali, Sh. Gurpreet Singh Jassal, agent resident of Dharamkot, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Kamboan Da Agwarh, Near Bunty Commission Agent Kothi, Dharamkot and Veterinary Officer, Animal Civil Hospital, Moga (herein-after referred to as opposite parties) directing opposite party No.1 to pay the insurance claim amount Rs.45,000/- on account of death of cow besides Rs.20,000/-as  compensation for causing mental tension and harassment.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant got his two cows insured with opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2 on 10.08.2014 after paying premium of Rs.4500/-  in which sum insured was Rs.45,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- respectively, which was valid for one year from the date of commencement. It has been pleaded that out of two cows, one cow of the complainant died on 23.09.2014, which was insured for Rs.45,000/-. The intimation in this regard was given to the Surveyor of opposite party No.1 by filling intimation-cum-claim form. It has been further pleaded that after intimation, surveyor alongwith opposite party

C.C.No. 09 of 2015                          //3//

No.3/Veterinary officer visited the spot and verified the death of his cow. The post mortem of the said cow was got conducted by opposite party No.3 on 23.09.2014. Further it has been pleaded that when the said cow was ill, the treatment was given by Dr. R.S.Sandhu, Moga. The complainant approached opposite party No.1 a number of times and requested it to settle his claim.  But vide letter No.DO-Mohali 2012-2969, the opposite party No.1 refused to pay the claim amount with regard to animal bearing tag No.78745 on the ground that the insured and died cow were different. Due to the negligent act of the opposite parties, the complainant is suffering from mental and physical harassment and economic loss.  Hence the present complaint.

3.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 appeared through its counsel Sh.Pawan Kumar Sharma Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. It took up certain preliminary objections interalia that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct; that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands; that the cow of the complainant was insured with opposite party No.1 vide cattle insurance policy No.112100/47/14/01/00000197 for the period 09.08.2014 to 08.08.2015 for Rs.45,000/- on 10.08.2014 bearing tag No.78745, which was not having sound health at the time of obtaining the insurance policy. The said cow died on 22.09.2014 at 7.00 P.M. after brief illness. Intimation in this regard was received. Opposite party appointed Surveyor namely

C.C.No. 09 of 2015                          //4//

U.S. Kohli for spot investigation, who inquired about heath of cow and recorded statements of inhabitant that the cow remained ill for 7-8 days before its death. At the time of obtaining the insurance policy, the complainant did not disclose about the disease of the cow. As per condition No.2 “ Every animal must be sound and in perfect health and free from any injury at the time of the proposal for insurance or for any renewal, addiction or substitution and must also remain sound and be in perfect health and free from any injury at the time of payment of the premium or balance thereof.” Vide letter dated 01.01.2015, the claim of the cow of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that the insured and dead animal were different as the insured animal was black and white, whereas dead animal was reddish white. On merits, the preliminary objections have been reiterated and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.

4.       Opposite party Nos.2 & 3 were ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte on 05.03.2015.

5.                In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6 and closed

his evidence.

6.                To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh.Anoop Kanojia authorized signatory Ex.OP1/1 and copies of documents Ex.OP1/2 to Ex. O.P1/17 and closed its evidence.

C.C.No. 09 of 2015                          //5//

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the record.

8.                On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that two cows of the complainant were insured with opposite party No.1 for a period of one year vide insurance policy. Out of two cows, one cow bearing tag No.78745 fell ill and died on 23.09.2014.  The complainant approached opposite party No.1 and submitted all relevant formalities to settle the claim. But, however, the insurance claim was declined by the opposite party No.1 vide letter Ex.O.P1/17 on the ground that the insured animal was different from the animal which died on 23.09.2014. The claim of opposite party No.1 is wrong and illegal and it is contended that the complaint may be allowed in view of the prayer.

9.                However, on the other hand, the learned counsel for opposite party No.1  has vehemently contended that claim was declined simply on the basis of the terms & conditions of the insurance policy purchased by the complainant. The cow of the complainant, which was insured with opposite party No.1 vide cattle insurance policy No.112100/47/14/01/00000197 bearing tag No.78745 was not having sound health at the time of obtaining the insurance policy.  The said cow died on 22.09.2014 at 7.00 P.M. after brief illness. Opposite party appointed Surveyor, who inquired about heath of cow and recorded statements of inhabitants who testified that  the cow remained ill for 7-8 days before its death. The learned counsel for opposite

C.C.No. 09 of 2015                          //6//

party further contended that as per condition No.2 of the Insurance Policy    “Every animal must be sound and in perfect health and free from any injury at the time of the proposal for insurance or for any renewal, addiction or substitution and must also remain sound and be in perfect health and free from any injury at the time of payment of the premium or balance thereof.” Moreover, in the case in hand, the complainant has failed to connect the animal in dispute with the insured cattle. Because the insured animal was of white & black colour, whereas the animal which died was of reddish brown & white in colour.  The claim of the complainant has been declined legally and it is contended that the opposite party No.1 is not deficient in service. The complaint is nothing, but an abuse of process of law and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.  

10.               We have given thoughtful consideration to rival contentions.

11.              It is the admitted case of opposite party No.1 that the cow was insured with it  vide policy No.112100/47/14/01/00000197 for the period from 09.08.2014 to 08.08.2015 for Rs.45,000/- on 10.08.2014.  It is also admitted case of opposite party No.1 that cow died on 22.09.2014. The only grievance of the complainant is that opposite party No.1 did not pay the claim amount of the insured cow on the ground that the insured cow and the cow which died were different. However, on the other hand, opposite party No.1 has produced on record photographs Ex. O.P1/2 to Ex.O.P.1/11 of the insured cow as well as dead cow of the complainant, which shows that the insured cow was of black & white colour, whereas,

C.C.No. 09 of 2015                          //7//

the dead animal was of reddish brown and white colour. The stand of opposite party No.1 further stand corroborated from survey report Ex.O.P.1/13, wherein the colour of dead animal is also shown to be reddish brown & white instead of black & white.  Since the complainant has failed to prove that dead animal was the same, which was insured vide insurance policy, therefore, no fault can be found on the part of opposite party No.1 for declining his claim. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and, therefore, the instant complaint fails and same is ordered to be dismissed accordingly. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost immediately and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

(Bhupinder Kaur)                    (Vinod Bala)                   (S.S.Panesar)

     Member                             Member                         President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:06.05.2015.