Punjab

StateCommission

A/10/1935

Darshan Singh Sidhu - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Naveen Batra

22 Nov 2013

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,  DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.

 

First Appeal No.1935 of 2010                                                    

Date of institution  :      09.11.2010 

Date of decision     :      22.11.2013 

 

Darshan Singh Sidhu son of Shri Labh Singh, c/o Sidhu Dairy Farm, Link Road, Village Kahri, District Hoshiarpur.

…….Appellant- Complainant

Versus

1. National Insurance Company Ltd., DO-II, GT Road, Dholewal Chowk, Ludhiana through its Manager.
2. Dr. Satnam Singh 868 Krishana Nagar, Ludhiana.
3. Allahabad Bank, Jallandhar Road, Hoshiarpur through its Branch Manager.
4. National Insurance Company Ltd., Phagwara Road, Hoshiarpur through its Branch Manager.

……Respondents- Opposite Parties    

First Appeal against the order dated 9.9.2010 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur.  

Quorum:- 

 

           Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.

                        Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.

                         Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.

Present:-

   For the appellant              : Shri Naveen Batra, Advocate. 

   For respondents No.1&4: Shri Vinod Gupta, Advocate.

   For respondent No.2       : None.

   For respondent No.3       : Shri Sumit Batra, Advocate.

 

JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH,  PRESIDENT :

          This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant against the order dated 9.9.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur (in short, “District Forum”), vide which the complaint filed by him under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for the issuance of directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs.32,000/- as the insurance amount, Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and harassment and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses, was dismissed.  He averred therein that he is running a dairy farm in the name of Sidhu Dairy Farm in Village Kahri, District Hoshiarpur in order to earn his livelihood.  He got insured all the cows with respondent No.1/opposite party No.1 through respondent No.3/opposite party No.3-Bank as there was one M.O.U. signed between opposite parties No.1 and 3.   The premium was being deposited by opposite party No.3 and that amount used to be deducted from his account every year.   One of the cow bearing Chip No.2595426 of the value of Rs.32,000/- died on 24.11.2008 and the claim was lodged with opposite party No.1 after intimation was given to its agent.  That agent instructed him to contact respondent No.2/opposite party No.2-Dr. Satnam Singh, who was the authorized investigating doctor of opposite party No.1.  That doctor removed the chip from the body of the cow and submitted his report to opposite party No.1.  However, that party did not settle the claim till the filing of the complaint.   He suffered mental tension and harassment on account of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 

2.      Opposite parties No.1 and 4 filed a joint written statement in which they averred that all the cows in the dairy farm of the complainant were not insured.   The intimation regarding the death of the cow bearing chip No.2595426 was given to the Insurance Company but neither the claim papers were moved nor the chip was provided to the Company.   The complainant failed to provide any opportunity to them to arrange independent survey/verification regarding the death of the cow.   The complainant is not entitled to any compensation or litigation expenses nor is entitled to any such insurance amount.   He has got no cause of action to file the present complaint.

3.      Opposite party No.3 in its written reply admitted that the premium of insurance was being deposited by it with opposite party No.1.   While denying the other averments made in the complaint, it pleaded that the complainant had not provided any information to it regarding the death of the cow.   He gave information regarding the death of other two cows and the claim in respect of those cows was got released by it from opposite party No.1.   No cause of action has accrued to the complainant against it as it always paid the premium in time.  It has unnecessarily been impleaded as a party.

4.      The parties produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf dismissed the complaint as premature, vide aforesaid order.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.

6.      It was submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that it was wrongly concluded by the District Forum that the complaint was premature.  It was never denied by opposite party No.1 in the written reply that intimation of the death of the cow was given to it, as well as to its agent.   Opposite party No.2, who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the cow, was to send the documents to opposite party No.1 as is clear from the certificate Ex.C-2 issued by him and those were submitted by that doctor to the said party.   After the submission of those documents, opposite party No.1 was to process and settle the claim.  In view of the evidence produced by the complainant the finding so recorded by the District Forum is liable to be set aside and the complaint is liable to be remanded to it for deciding the same on merits.   No arguments were advanced by learned counsel for opposite party No.3 on the ground that the relief was claimed in the complaint against opposite party No.1 alone.

7.      The complainant in support of the averments made in the complaint proved on record his affidavit Ex.C-1.  In that affidavit, he stated that he had lodged the claim with opposite party No.1 after intimation to its agent.  That deposition of the complainant was duly rebutted by the affidavit of M.S. Paul, Manager, Ex.R-1, in which he deposed that the complainant had only given information regarding the death of two cows of which the claim was got released and no such information was given regarding the death of the present cow.   It was deposed by A.R. Kamal, Divisional Manager in his affidavit Ex.OP1 that no claim papers were submitted to the Insurance Company in respect of the death of the cow in question and even the chip of that cow was not handed over to the Company.  He also deposed that the complainant even failed to inform the Company regarding the death of the cow.

8.      No doubt, it was mentioned by opposite party No.2 in his Certificate Ex.C-2 that the post mortem report, original micro chip and other documents will directly be sent to the Insurance Company for settlement of the claim but nothing was proved on the record that he actually sent all those documents to the Insurance Company for the settlement of the claim.   The complainant could have summoned him for proving that fact but he failed to do so.   The oral evidence produced by him stands rebutted by the evidence produced by the opposite parties.  In these circumstances the finding recorded by the District Forum that the claim was never submitted by the complainant to the Insurance Company is to be upheld.  In the absence of the claim, it was not possible for the Insurance Company to process and settle the same.  The District Forum directed the complainant to lodge the claim with the Insurance Company within 30 days and directed the Insurance Company to process/settle the same within two months from the lodging of the claim.  Instead of following that direction, which was issued to safeguard his interest, the complainant has filed the present appeal, which is without any merit.   The same is dismissed accordingly.  However, no order is made as to costs.

9.      The arguments in this case were heard on 15.11.2013 and the order was reserved.  Now, the order be communicated to the parties.

10.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                          (JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)

                                                                          PRESIDENT                                            

 

                                                          (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)

                                                                               MEMBER  

       

                                                     (MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR)

November 22 , 2013                                                                                                                                                                       MEMBER

Bansal