DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No: CC/82/2022
Date of Institution: 07.03.2022
Date of Decision: 22.08.2024
Sukhdev Singh aged about 64 years son of Nirmal Singh resident of H. No. 230, Village-Naiwala, Naiwala Sher Singh Pura, Barnala, Punjab-148100.
…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. N.K. Garg 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 7 years having height of 4 feet and colour 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. OIC55652 which was tagged in the ears of insured cow and Live Stock (Cattle) insurance policy bearing No. 233704/47/2018/468 was issued and at that time a health certificate was also dully issued by the Veterinary Doctor. It is further alleged that said cow suddenly died on 1.2.2019 and postmortem of the said cow was conducted by the Doctor of Veterinary Hospital Barnala on 2.2.2019. Thereafter, the complainant immediately in the month of March 2019 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 25.11.2021 upon the opposite parties for his claim and the same was replied by opposite parties on 21.12.2021 and mentioned that they have already rejected. 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 from March 2019 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 inspite of repeated letters/reminders dated 11.3.2019 and 20.3.2019 issued in writing, the complainant did not comply with requirements. 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" on 28.3.2019 and the complainant had the knowledge and notice about the decision of Company.
4. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant failed to provide the Ear Tag of the dead cow and it is also revealed that in the post mortem report, the doctor did not have any remarks in regard to the Ear Tag. It is further submitted that the opposite parties written letter dated 11.3.2019 and demanded the Ear Tag and Bank detail, but the complainant failed to provide the above said documents and opposite parties again wrote letter dated 20.3.2019 for providing the above said requirements. It is further submitted that on receipt of the claim, it was duly registered and processed. While processing of the claim, few queries were raised which were informed to the complainant vide registered letters dated 11.3.2019 & 20.3.2019 but no reply was received and claim was finally closed as No Claim. 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 (containing 2 pages), 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 (containing 2 pages), copies of postal receipts are Ex.C-7 & C-8, copy of reply of legal notice as Ex.C-9 (containing 2 pages), copy of adhaar card Ex.C-10 and closed the evidence.
7. The opposite parties tendered into evidence copy of letter dated 11.3.2019 as Ex.OPs-1, copy of letter dated 20.3.2019 as Ex.OPs-2, copy of policy Ex.O.Ps-3 (containing 3 pages), copy of investigation report alongwith photographs Ex.O.Ps-4 (containing 4 pages), affidavit of Mukesh Malhotra Ex.O.Ps-5 and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
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. 1.2.2019 but the complainant has filed the present complaint on 7.3.2022 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. 55652 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 also shown as OIC55652. The complainant further placed on record copy of postmortem certificate Ex.C-4 report issued by the Veterinary Officer, which shows that the Cow in question died on 1.2.2019 and tag number is shown as OIC55652. Ex.C-5 is the copy of claim form addressed to the opposite parties, which shows that the animal in question died on 1.2.2019 and the same was insured for Rs. 60,000/-. Ex.C-6 is the copy of legal notice dated 22.11.2021 and Ex.C-7 & Ex.C-8 are the copies of postal receipts. Ex.C-9 is the copy of reply dated 21.12.2022 to legal notice and the Ex.C-10 is the copy of adhaar card of complainant.
12. The case of the opposite parties is that the complainant failed to provide the Ear Tag of the dead cow and it is also revealed in the post mortem report that the doctor did not have any remarks in regard to the Ear Tag. It is further the case of the opposite parties that the opposite parties written letter dated 11.3.2019 and 20.3.2019 Ex.O.Ps-1 & Ex.O.Ps-2 to the complainant vide which demanded the Ear Tag and Bank detail, but the complainant failed to provide the above said documents. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant has not received the above said letters dated 11.3.2019 & 20.3.2019 from the opposite parties. We have gone through the above said letters Ex.O.Ps-1 & Ex.O.Ps-2 and are of the view that the opposite parties have failed to place on record any postal receipt of the above said letters to prove the fact that they have sent the above said letters to the complainant through registered post and demanded some documents.
13. 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 by producing any cogent evidence. Moreover, the opposite parties have placed on record the report of Surveyor/Investigator Sh. B.L. Goyal Ex.O.Ps-4 which shows the description of dead animal and it is mentioned that the Colours Black & White, Tail Switch White, Colour of Forehead White and further shows the Tag No. 55652 and the same fact was mentioned in the health certificate and postmortem certificate i.e. Ex.C-3 & Ex.C-4. It is also mentioned in the report of Investigator Ex.O.Ps-4 that “found Tag was in Ear of Dead Cow & noted its Number”. The opposite parties have not paid the claim on unjustified and unreasonable ground. Therefore, 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.
14. 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
