Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/65

Jaswant Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Charanjit Sidana

08 May 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

C. C. No. :               65 of 2018

Date of Institution:   11.04.2018

Date of Decision :      8.05.2019

 

Jaswant Singh aged about 51 years s/o Hari Singh, r/o Village Aulakh, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. The Oriental Insurance company Limited, 233704-CBO Ferozepur, B-I-90, Opposite Central Jail, the Mall, Ferozepur City.
2. The Faridkot Primary Co-operative Agriculuture Development Bank Limited, Kotkapura Road, Faridkot.

....OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

         

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

Present: Sh Charanjit Sidana, Ld Counsel for complainant,

              Sh Vinod Monaga, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

              Sh Bikramjit Singh Brar, Ld Counsel for OP-2.

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

 

                                                          Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to make payment of Rs.50,000/-

                                                   cc no. 65 of 2018

 

on account of insured cow and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.20,0000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony besides litigation expenses.

2                              Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant runs Dairy Farm  business and he purchased livestock with the help of loan taken from OP-2/Faridkot Primary Co-operative Agriculture Development Branch, Kotkapura and at the time of sanctioning loan, OP-2 secured loan by cattle insurance from OP-1 vide provisional cover note number CHD-C 994864 dated 22.08.2014 for Rs.7640/- and complainant paid Rs.7640/-to OP-2 for securing loan and OP-1 insured all his livestock vide Insurance Policy No.233704/47/2015/802 valid from 22.08.2014 to 21.08.2015. At the time of issuance of policy, Surjit Singh Deol examined the health of cattle and issued health certificate. It is further submitted that on 29.04.2015 one cow of complainant died due to cardiac arrest during the validity of insurance period and complainant immediately informed OP-1 and OP-2 from which he took loan. Post mortem examination of cow was conducted in Civil Veterinary Hospital, Village Bargari. Complainant lodged claim with OPs and submitted claim form and also completed requisite formalities, but till today Ops have not settled the insurance claim on account of death of his cow. Complainant visited the office of OPs many times and made several requests to Ops to settle the insurance claim on account of death of his cow as he has completed all

 

cc no. 65 of 2018

the formalities and submitted requisite documents with them, but all his efforts to get his genuine insurance claim bore no fruit. Due to non payment of insurance claim by OPs, complainant has been suffering great economic loss and hardships and it amounts to trade mal practice and deficiency in service on their part and it has caused harassment and mental agony to complainant. He has prayed for directions to OPs to pay Rs.50,000/-as insurance claim alongwith compensation and litigation expenses. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                         The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 17.04.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                       OP-1 filed written statement taking preliminary objections that no cause of action arises against them and there is no deficiency in service on their part. It is averred that despite repeated written demands through letters dated 2.07.2015, 6.08.2015 and 24.09.2015, complainant has not furnished post mortem report and ear tag of alleged dead cow and therefore, claim of complainant was declared as no claim. However, on merits Op-1 have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect, but admitted before the Forum that complainant purchased and got insured his livestock from them against policy in question valid from 22.08.2014 to 21.08.2015 and policy was issued to him with all details of animal i.e ear

cc no. 65 of 2018

tag description, value and details of same. It is also admitted that  complainant lodged claim with them regarding death of his insured cow, but in claim he did not give description of ear tag number and other details regarding his dead cow. Despite repeated letters dated 2.07.2015, 6.08.2015 and 24.09.2015, complainant neither furnished post mortem report  nor gave ear tag number of dead cow.  Even Investigator appointed by OP visited the house of complainant, but complainant stated that cow has been shifted to hadda rori, investigator immediately went to hadda rori and found that two dead animals were lying there but he did not find ear tag in the ears of any animal and therefore, claim of complainant was closed as No Claim and there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                           OP-2 filed written statement where denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that loan raised by complainant has been paid back to them and complaint in hand does not lie against them. it is further averred that answering OP has since recovered its loan and matter is now, between complainant and OP-1 and they have no role to play in insurance claim of complainant. all the other allegations are denied being wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.

6                                          Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence her

 

cc no. 65 of 2018

affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 11 and then, closed his evidence.

6                                              In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence, affidavit of Ashwani Kumar, Div. Manager as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to 6 and then, closed the same on behalf of OPs.

7                                              We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file.

8                                               Ld Counsel for complainant vehementally argued that that complainant runs a Dairy Farm and he purchased cows and buffaloes with the help of loan taken from OP-2/ Primary Cooperative Agriculture Development Branch, Kotkapura and got insured all his cattle vide Insurance Policy No.233704/47/2015/802 valid from 22.08.2014 to 21.08.2015 and at the time of issuance of policy, Surjit Singh Deol after examination of health of cattle, issued health certificate.  During subsistence of policy in question, one cow of complainant died. He immediately informed OPs and then Post mortem examination of cow was conducted in Civil Veterinary Hospital, Village Bargari. Complainant lodged claim with OPs and also completed requisite formalities, but Ops have not settled the insurance claim of complainant on account of death of his cow. Grievance of complainant is

 

cc no. 65 of 2018

that despite repeated requests, OPs have not cleared his insurance claim which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. He has prayed for accepting the complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides main relief and stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 11.

9                           To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OP-1 argued that there is no deficiency in service on their part as despite repeated letters dated 2.07.2015, 6.08.2015 and 24.09.2015, complainant has not furnished post mortem report and ear tag of alleged dead cow and therefore, claim of complainant was declared as no claim. OP-1 admitted that complainant purchased and got insured his livestock from them against policy said question valid from 22.08.2014 to 21.08.2015 and policy was issued to him with all details of animal i.e ear tag description, value and details of same. Complainant lodged claim regarding death of his insured cow, but in claim he did not give description of ear tag number and other details regarding his dead cow. Despite issuance of letters dated 2.07.2015, 6.08.2015 and 24.09.2015, complainant neither furnished post mortem report nor gave ear tag number of dead cow. Investigator appointed by OP visited the house of complainant, but complainant stated that cow has been shifted to hadda rori, he immediately went to hadda rori and found that two dead animals were lying there but he did not find ear tag in the ears of any animal and therefore, claim of complainant was closed as No Claim and there is no deficiency in service on their part.

 

cc no. 65 of 2018

10                                Ld Counsel for OP-2 argued that loan raised by complainant has been paid back to them and complaint in hand does not lie against them. Since, OP-2 have recovered its loan amount and now, they have no role to play in insurance claim of complainant and entire matter regarding insurance claim is between complainant and OP-1. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint against them.

11                                After careful perusal of the record available on file and going through the evidence led by parties, it is observed that case of the complainant is that he purchased cows and buffaloes for running dairy business after availing loan from OP-2 and also got insured all livestock and at the time of issuance of insurance policy, OPs got conducted the medical examination of all cattle. During subsistence of Policy in question one cows of complainant died and he duly informed OP-1 and OP-2 from where he took loan and also completed all the formalities and submitted all the requisite documents to OPs. Allegation of complainant is that the OPs have not settled the insurance claim on account of death of his cow, which amounts to deficiency in service. In reply, OP-1 took plea that despite issuance of three letters, complainant did not provide post mortem report and ear tag number of dead cow to them and therefore, claim of complainant was declared as no claim and there is no deficiency in service on their part. As per OP-2

 

cc no. 65 of 2018

matter is between complainant and OP-1 and they have nothing to do with the insurance claim of complainant.

12                              We have thoroughly gone through the facts and documents produced by the parties. From the perusal of documents Ex C-1 and Ex C-2, it is clear that complainant paid Rs.7,640/-and Rs.11,460/-to OP-2 as premium for insurance of his cow and got insured the same on 20.08.2014 and 20.03.2014 respectively. Ex C-4 and Ex C-5 are copy of health certificate issued by Dr Surjit Singh Deol that proves that at the time of issuance of insurance policy in question, OPs got conducted medical examination of said cow regarding its fitness.  Ex C-8 is copy of post mortem report that insured cow of complainant died on 29.04.2015 at 6.00 am due to cardiac arrest. Complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove his pleadings and all documents produced by him are authentic.

13                                      From the perusal of above discussion, the present complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OPs are directed to give Rs.50,000/-as insurance claim on account of death of his insured cow alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per anum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e 11.04.2017 till final realization. Ops are further directed to pay Rs.3000/-to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment suffered by him and litigation expenses incurred by him. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed

cc no. 65 of 2018

under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 8.05.2019

(Param Pal Kaur)           (Ajit Aggarwal)   

Member                         President