DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No: CC/98/2022
Date of Institution: 31.03.2022
Date of Decision: 22.08.2024
Gurbakshish Singh aged about 35 years son of Jagseer Singh resident of VPO Sukhpura District Barnala, Punjab.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office, B-I-90, Opposite Central Jail, The Mall Ferozpur City-152002, Punjab through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Present: Sh. Gagandeep Garg Adv counsel for complainant.
Sh. Varinder Kumar Goyal Adv counsel for opposite parties.
Quorum.-
1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover: President
2. Smt. Urmila Kumari: Member
3. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg: Member
(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory & others (in short the opposite parties).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that in the month of February 2018 complainant purchased one female Graded Milch Cow, aged 5 years having height of 4 feet, with natural identification marks of forehead and tail white and colour Brownish Black. It is alleged that in the February 2018 complainant approached opposite party No. 2 for insurance of the said cow and cow was insured by opposite parties on 13.2.2018 and an amount of Rs. 2832/- was paid by the complainant and the said cow was insured for Rs. 60,000/- for the period 13.2.2018 to 12.2.2019. It is further alleged that the opposite party No. 2 issued Tag No. OIC55650 which was tagged in the ears of insured cow and Live Stock (Cattle) insurance policy bearing No. 233704/47/2018/471 was issued and at that time a health certificate was also dully issued by the Veterinary Doctor. It is further alleged that on 12.4.2018 the said cow was died and postmortem of the said cow was conducted by the Doctor of Veterinary Hospital Barnala on 12.4.2018. Thereafter, the complainant immediately in the month of April 2018 submitted claim form to get the claim of insured cow. The complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 number of times and requested to pay the amount of claim to the complainant but the opposite party No. 2 failed to accede the request of the complainant. It is further alleged that in the meantime in March 2020 Pandemic Covid-19 spread all over in India and Government of India announced Lock down all over in India and due to this reason the complainant could not approach the opposite parties for his genuine claim. It is further alleged that in the year 2021 complainant again approached the opposite party No. 2 for his claim, but of no use. Thereafter, the complainant through his counsel sent one legal notice dated 10.12.2021 upon the opposite parties for his claim and the same was replied by opposite parties on 3.1.2022 and mentioned that they have already rejected the claim of complainant as “No Claim”. The above said act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.-
- The opposite parties may be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs. 60,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of claim submission dated 12.4.2018 till realization.
- To pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing physical pain and harassment to the complainant and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties appeared and filed written version by taking preliminary objections on the grounds that complainant has not come with clean hands and complainant has no cause of action or locus-standi to file the present complaint. It is further alleged that opposite parties observed that claim papers were not countersigned by the financing bank with bank account details. No photograph with ear tag duly attested by veterinary doctor was submitted and thirdly as per health certificate submitted at the time of insurance, the colour of cow is mentioned as brownish black, whereas, in the photograph, dead cow is brownish black with white patches. It is further alleged that the complainant had neither replied to queries raised by the opposite parties nor complainant submitted any reply/record in support of claim clarifying above points inspite of repeated letters/ reminders dated 04.06.18, 29.08.18 and 14.11.18 in writing issued by the opposite parties neither complainant nor the financing bank has complied with requirements noted in the said letters. The complainant has failed to cooperate and assist the opposite parties in providing the required information without which the opposite parties was not able to proceed further with the settlement of the claim. Ultimately, claim of the complainant was closed as "NO CLAIM" in November 2018 and the complainant had the knowledge and notice about the decision of Company.
4. On merits, it is denied that in the month of February 2018 complainant purchased one female Graded Milch Cow, aged 5 years having height of 4 feet, with natural identification marks of forehead and tail white and Colour Brownish Black. It is also denied that in February 2018 complainant approached opposite party No. 2 for insurance of the above said cow and said cow was insured by the opposite parties and on dated 13.02.2018 an amount of Rs. 2832/- was paid by the complainant to the opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 2 insured the said cow for Rs. 60,000/- for the period of 13.02.2018 to 12.02.2019. All other allegations of the complaint are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
5. The complainant filed rejoinder to the written version of opposite parties vide which he denied the averments as mentioned in the version.
6. The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.C-1, copy of policy schedule as Ex.C-2, copy of Health certificate as Ex.C-3, copy of Postmortem Certificate as Ex.C-4, copy of claim form as Ex.C-5 (containing 2 pages), copy of legal notice as Ex.C-6, copies of postal receipts are Ex.C-7 & C-8, copy of reply of legal notice as Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence.
7. The opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Mukesh Malhotra Ex.O.Ps-1, copy of letter dated 04.06.2018 as Ex.OPs-2, copy of letter dated 29.08.2018 as Ex.OPs-3, copy of postal receipt Ex.OPs-4, copy of letter dated 14.11.2018 as Ex.OPs-5, copy of reply of legal notice Ex.OPs-6 and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. Written arguments filed by the parties.
9. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties argued that the present complaint is time barred (beyond limitation) because the complainant had the limitation to file the present complaint within two years from date on which the cause of action has arisen to the complainant i.e. 12.4.2018 but the complainant has filed the present complaint on 31.3.2022 after the gap of almost two years. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed on record the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 vide which the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that “The period from 15.3.2020 till 28.2.2022 shall stand excluded for purpose of limitations may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings”. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further placed on record judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP-27537-2022 in case titled Naval Singh Vs Commissioner Rohtak and others vide which the Hon’ble High Court held that “Extension of Limitation Period due to Covid-19- Where limitation of a case was expiring during the period between 15.3.2020 till 28.2.2022, then, limitation in such a situation was to start from 1.3.2022 and a period of 90 days was to be granted to file necessary application/appeal etc.”
10. In view of the above said law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, we are of the view that the present compliant is within limitation.
11. In order to prove his case the complainant has placed on record his detailed affidavit Ex.C-1, wherein he reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint. Further, the complainant has placed on record the insurance policy Ex.C-2 which shows that this policy was valid from 13.2.2018 to 12.2.2019 and the cattle in question bearing Token No. OIC55650 was insured for Rs. 60,000/. Ex.C-3 is the copy of health certificate vide which the tag number of the above said cow is shown as OIC55650. The complainant further placed on record copy of postmortem certificate Ex.C-4 issued by the Veterinary Officer, which shows that the Cow in question died on 12.4.2018 and tag number is shown as OIC55650. Ex.C-5 is the copy of claim form addressed to the opposite parties, which shows that the animal in question died on 12.4.2018 and the same was insured for Rs. 60,000/-. Ex.C-6 is the copy of legal notice dated 9.12.2021 and Ex.C-7 & Ex.C-8 are the copies of postal receipts. Ex.C-9 is the copy of reply dated 3.1.2022 to legal notice.
12. We have minutely gone through the facts and evidence produced by both the parties. The opposite parties have failed to rebut the case of the complainant. The complainant has produced all the documents and claim form on the Court file. The defence taken by opposite parties that the complainant has not given the proper reply to the letters and also not produced the documents are not adequate. So, by not paying the genuine claim of the complainant there is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
13. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay insured amount of Rs. 60,000/- (as mentioned in insurance policy) alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint till realization. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- on account of consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental tension and harassment as well as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:
22nd Day of August, 2024
(Ashish Kumar Grover)
President
(Urmila Kumari)
Member
(Navdeep Kumar Garg)
Member
