Punjab

Sangrur

CC/914/2015

Kulwant Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

OIC Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri S.S.Ratol

02 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                        

                                                Complaint No.  914

                                                Instituted on:    27.08.2015

                                                Decided on:       02.06.2016

 

Kulwant Singh son of Gurmukh Singh son of Naranjan Singh, resident of Village Gajja Majra, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.     Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Branch Office, SCO No.126, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala.

2.     Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Outside Nabha Gate, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri S.S.Ratol, Adv.

For OPs.                   :       Shri Bhushan Garg, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Kulwant 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 availed the services of the OPs by getting insured his various cows from the Ops through his bank by paying the requisite premium, as such the complainant has alleged that he got insured his cows from the Ops.

 

2.             Further case of the complainant is that one of his cow died on 12.2.2015 during the subsistence of the insurance, as such the complainant intimated the Ops about the death of the cow. The post-mortem of the above said cow was conducted by the Veterinary Surgeon of Civil Hospital, Lasoi.  It is further averred that the cow in question was insured for Rs.50,000/-.  It is further averred that after receiving the intimation of the dead cow, the Ops appointed surveyor, who visited the house of the complainant and checked the dead cow, who also removed the chip from the body of the dead animal. The complainant also submitted all the documents to the Ops for payment of claim, but the OPs repudiated the claim of the complainant on the pretext that at the time of insurance the micro chip number 9001080000001571 was inserted while after the death of the animal, the chip number 99900000009010471 was taken out. It is stated further that the Ops have wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant on this allegation. As such, 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 and further to pay compensation for mental tension, agony and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply filed by OPs, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, that the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer, that the complaint is not maintainable and that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint. On merits, it is denied that the complainant got insured his cows through bank. Further it has been denied that the complainant purchased the cows for the purpose of self employment and to earn livelihood. Further case of the Ops is that the complainant got insured his 25 cows from the OP number 1 vide two insurance policies which is valid for the period from 25.12.2014 got 24.12.2015 subject to the terms and conditions and each of the animal was insured for Rs.50,000/-.  It is further averred in the reply that after receipt of intimation of claim, OP number 1 immediately appointed investigator Shri Amrik Singh for the purpose of investigation. The chip from the dead cow was taken out by Shri Kuljeet Singh of M/s. Guru Ramdass Chipping Company Sanour, Patiala in the presence of the investigator Amrik Singh and its reading was 999000000910471 and as such it is stated that the OP number 1 did not insure the animal having this chip number. It is further stated that since the chip found in the dead animal was different than the other, as such, the claim of the complainant was repudiated rightly and nothing is payable to the complainant. Lastly, any deficiency in service at all on the part of the OPs has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 live stock claim form, Ex.C-2 copy of policy, Ex.C-3 copy of post-mortem report, Ex.C-4 copy of letter, Ex.C-5 copy of repudiation letter, Ex.C-6 copy of cover note, Ex.C-7 copy of cover note, Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-10 copies of health certificates, Ex.C-11 copy of ration card, Ex.C-12 to Ex.C-13 photographs, Ex.C-14 affidavit of the complainant and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs number  has produced  Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2 affidavits, Ex.OP-3 copy of repudiation letter, Ex.OP-4 copy of investigation report, Ex.OP-5 copy of statement of Kulwant Singh, Ex.OP-6 copy of statement of Jaswinder Singh, Ex.OP-7 to Ex.OP-9 copies of health certificates, Ex.OP-10 copy of insurance policy, Ex.OP-11 copy of terms and conditions, Ex.OP-12 copy of letter dated 12.2.2015, Ex.OP-13 copy of certificate, Ex.OP-14 copy of claim form, Ex.OP-15 copy of PMR, Ex.OP-16 copy of certificate, Ex.OP-17 copy of chip reading certificate and closed evidence.

 

5.             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 dismissal, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his various cows from the OPs. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the complainant gave an intimation to the Ops about death of one cow on 12.2.2015 and as such, the Ops deputed investigator, Shri Amrik Singh, who submitted his report dated 9.3.2015, whereby it was stated by the investigator that the chip number of the dead cow does not tally with the insured cow as the insured cow was having chip number 9001080000001571, whereas the chip found from the body of the dead cow was having number 999000000910471, as is evident from the copy of livestock claim form cum valuation certificate, which is on record as Ex.C-1.  Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7 are the copies of cover notes issued by the OPs in the name of the complainant a bare perusal of the same reveals that in Ex.C-6 cow bearing tag number 900108000001571 was insured at serial number 9, but in the Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7, no where it is shown that any animal bearing tag number 99900000009010471 was ever insured by the OPs. 

 

7.             The learned counsel for the Ops has further contended vehemently that since the dead cow was not insured one and does not carry the tag bearing number 900108000001571, as such, the Ops have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.  To support the contention of the Ops, the learned counsel for the Ops has also produced on record the affidavit of Shri A.S.Dhinga, Divisional Manager Ex.OP-2. We have further perused the copy of the report dated 09.03.2015, Ex.OP-4 of Shri Amrik Singh, investigator, wherein in its conclusion it has been clearly mentioned that number of the chip taken out from the carcass does not tally with the chip as mentioned in the policy and further there are various variation in the insured and dead cow as detailed in the report.  In the circumstances of the case, we find that since the dead cow in question was not having any tag bearing number 900108000001571, as such, we are of the considered opinion that the rule ‘No tag No claim” is fully applicable in the present case, as the complainant has miserably failed to establish his case that the dead cow was insured one with the OPs, by producing cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record.

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we find no case made out against the OPs of any deficiency in service, as such, the complaint is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                June 2, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

                                       

                                                           (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member                                                     

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member