Punjab

Sangrur

CC/101/2015

Pardeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri J.S.Moudgill

15 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    101

                                                Instituted on:      05.03.2015

                                                Decided on:       15.07.2015

 

Pardeep Singh son of Raj Singh, resident of Village Khadial, Tehsil Sunam, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     National Insurance Co. Ltd. Pilli Kothi, Thandi Sarak, Malerkotla-148 023, District Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

2.     National Insurance Company Limited, Opposite Improvement Trust Market, Outside Dhuri Road, Sangrur through its Divisional Manager.

3.     P.A.D.B. Bank, Near Railway Crossing, Branch Sunam through its Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Jasjeet Singh Moudgill, Adv.

For OPs No.1&2        :       Shri Ashish Garg, Adv.

For OP No.3              :       Exparte.

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Pardeep Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant got his six cows insured from OPs number 1 and 2 through OP number 3 vide policy number 404202/47/12/9400000/155 for the period from 25.1.2013 to 24.1.2016 by paying the requisite premium of Rs.30,000/- and the OPs issued group cattle insurance policy. It is further averred that the OPs insured the cows after medicially examining the cows of the complainant through Veterinary Officer of Civil Veterinary Hospital, Sunam in the presence of the representative of OPs number 1 and 2. It is further averred that each of the cow was insured for Rs.50,000/- and the OPs also installed tag numbers 2973 to 2978, respectively on the cows of the complainant.

 

2.               It is further averred that on 27.01.2014, the cow bearing tag number 2978 died due to Hypovalemia and accordingly the complainant intimated about the death of the cow to OPs number 1 and 2 and the Ops number 1 and 2 advised the complainant to get the post mortem of the dead cow conducted from Civil Veterinary Hospital, Sunam, and Dr. Vishal Deep, Veterinary Officer, conducted the post-mortem and issued post-mortem certificate.  It is further averred that thereafter as per the advice of the OPs number 1 and 2 the dead animal was brought to hadda rori, which was also verified by the employees of the OPs. The complainant also submitted all the requisite documents to the Ops number 1 and 2. Thereafter the Ops number 1 and 2 sent letters to the complainant, which were duly replied.  It is further averred that vide letter dated 8.5.2014, the OPs intimated the complainant that the claim of the cow bearing tag number 2978 has been repudiated, which is said to be wrong and illegal. 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 an amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of death of the cow till realisation. Further the complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.30,000/- on account of mental torture, agony and harassment and an amount of Rs.11,000/- on account of  litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply filed by the OPs number 1 and 2, it is stated that on the request of the complainant, his six cows were insured for the period from 25.1.2013 to 24.1.2016 subject to the terms and conditions of the policy for Rs.50,000/- each and tag bearing number 2973 to 2978 were inserted for identification of the insured cow. The policy as well as terms and conditions were duly supplied to the complainant.  It is further admitted that after receiving intimation from OP number 3 regarding death of one cow the OPs immediately appointed Shri Amar Nath Taneja for investigation of the complainant’s claim, who personally visited and submitted his report dated 27.3.2014.  It has been stated by the investigator in his report that the deceased cow was not tallying with the insured cow bearing tag number 2978, as the colour of forehead of the cow bearing tag number 2978 was white as per health certificate, but the colour of entire face including forehead of deceased cow was white, therefore, the deceased cow does not tally with the insured cow. It is further stated that there were nine cows with three bachies in the house of the complainant and all were without tag number except the deceased cow and the tags were also not in possession of the complainant. It is further stated that the investigator observed that the tag bearing number 2978 was inserted later on as the same was a fresh one.  It is stated further that the investigator observed that the insured inserted the ear tag in the ear of the deceased later on and recommended ‘no claim’, as such, the OPs rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant on 22.5.2014. Any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied.

 

4.             OP number 3 did not appear despite service, as such, OP number 3 was proceeded exparte on 27.04.2015.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of live stock claim form, Ex.C-2 copy of insurance policy, Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-6 photographs, Ex.C-7 copy of PMR, Ex. C-8 copy of letter dated 8.5.2014, Ex.C-9 affidavit, Ex.C-10 copy of reply dated 14.5.2014, Ex.C-11 copy of letter dated 22.5.2014 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs number 1 and 2 has produced Ex.OP1&2/1 copy of health certificate, Ex.OP1&2/2 copy of policy, Ex.OP1&2/3 copy of intimation, Ex.OP1&2/4 copy of survey report, Ex.OP1&2/5 copy of letter, Ex.OP1&2/6 and Ex.OP1&2/7 affidavits, Ex.OP1&2/8 photographs, Ex.OP1&2/9 to Ex.OP1&2/12 copies of letters and closed evidence.  

 

6.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

7.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his six cows for the period from 25.1.2013 to 24.1.2016 from the OPs number 1 and 2 under the policy in question, a copy of which on record is Ex.OP1&2/2. It is also not in dispute that the complainant intimated to the OPs about the death of the cow in question bearing tag number 2978.  It is further case of the complainant that unfortunately the cow in question of the complainant bearing tag number 2978 died on 27.1.2014 during the subsistence of the insurance policy, but grievance of the complainant is that the OPs number 1 and 2 have repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 8.5.2014 on the ground that the forehead of the dead cow was not tallying with the insured one.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs number 1 and 2 has contended vehemently that the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated. 

 

8.             We have very carefully perused the whole of the case file and further perused the animal health certificate, which is on record as Ex.OP1&2/1 and the particulars of the dead cow in question depicts at serial number 6 of this certificate.  It also mentions that tag number 2978 NIC was inserted in the cow.  Further copy of policy Ex.OP1&2/2 clearly shows that the cow in question was having white forehead. Ex.OP1&2/8 is the photograph of the dead cow which also shows that the cow in question was having white forehead.  We may mention here that the complainant has apparently proved on record that the cow in question was bearing tag number 2978 at the time of its death as is evident from the photograph on record as Ex.C-4.  The same fact is also proved from the photograph Ex.C-6. Further Ex.C-7 is the copy of post-mortem report issued by Dr. Vishal Deep, wherein he has clearly mentioned in the column identification mark that tag number 2978 was removed from the dead cow.  Ex.OP1&2/4 is the copy of investigation report dated 27.3.2014, wherein on its page number 3, it has been mentioned which is reproduced as ‘…….the tag number 2978 was found with proper font with the unused tag number 7989, but at the time of our inspection of the tagged ear it was found as a fresh one, and in a cow every time surrounded by dung’s/fodder the tag could not be clean as put up by the insured. So has been proved that the only available tag number 2978 was got implanted by the insured in the dead animal irrespective of the identity of the dead cow with the health certificate and insurance policy even…….”  But, we are unable to accept such a contention of the investigator that the tag was inserted by the insured in the dead cow.  It is worth mentioning here that it is the duty of the Ops to insert the tag in the ear of the animal at the time of insurance and it is presumed that the employees of the Ops have inserted the tag in the insured animal at the time of effecting insurance to establish the identity of the insured animal.  But, at this stage, it is not fair on the part of the Ops to say that the tag was inserted in the ear of the dead cow later on and after its death, as the tag is not supplied by the OPs in loose at the time of insurance of the animals rather the same is required to be inserted in the insured animal.  Further the case of the Ops is not that the tag is fake one.  Under these circumstances, it is fairly proved on record that the insured cow bearing tag number 2978 has been died  on 27.1.2014, of which the claim has been wrongly and illegally repudiated by the Ops vide letter dated 8.5.2014.  It is also not in dispute that the cow in question was insured for Rs.50,000/-.  We further feel that it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

 

9.             The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.

 

10.            In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs number 1 and 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- being the insurance claim on account of death of the insured cow in question along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 05.03.2015 till its realisation.  OPs number 1 and 2 are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension and harassment and litigation expenses.

 

11.            This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                July 15, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member