Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/93/2014

Davinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

oriental insurance Comp LTD - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Narinder pal Singh

28 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                                                                                        Consumer Complaint No.93 of 2014

                                                                                                                               Date of institution:  08/07/2014                                                                                                                                                                           Date of decision   :  28.07.2015

Devinder Singh aged 62 years son of Isher Singh, Resident of village Sarana, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

 

1. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office SCO No.109-111 Sector 17-D Chandigarh-160017                                                                          Tele: 2728526, 5045743 and 5059464.
2. PADB Bank, Sirhind, through its Manager.

…..Opposite parties

      

Complaint Under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                                 Smt. Veena Chahal, Member                                                            Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member     

Present :   Sh.J.S. Grewal Adv. Cl. for the complainant                                                       Sh. B.L.Gupta, Adv.Cl. for OP No.1.                                                               None for OP No.2.

      

 

ORDER

By Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

                 Complainant, Devinder Singh, aged 62 years son of Isher Singh, resident of village Sarana, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.              The complainant took a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- for the purchase of Buffaloes and Cows for dairy farming from OP No.2. After purchase of two buffaloes and two cows, he got insured the same from OP No.1 for the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- i.e. Rs.50,000/- for each animal. Opposite party No.1 issued the insurance policy bearing No.231100/47/2014/515 dated 21/1/2014 and cover note No.CHD-C 894886 for the period from 22/1/2014 to 21/1/2015. The said animals were provided tag numbers 20895 to 20898. On 06.03.2014 one buffalo bearing tag No.20895, Female, Murrah graded black colour, horns curved died and the concerned Veterinary Doctor conducted the postmortem. The complainant informed the opposite parties regarding the death of said buffalo and requested to give the insured amount of Rs.50,000/-. On the asking of OPs the complainant completed all the formalities and filed the required claim form of dead animal. But the opposite parties neither paid the claim amount nor pay any heed to the genuine requests of the complainant. The complainant previously also filed a consumer complaint No.60 dated 12.05.2014 in this forum on the same cause of action regarding the same subject matter and the said complaint was disposed of with directions to the opposite parties to consider and decide the claim within 30 days. After the said directions given to the opposite parties, the complainant again approached the opposite parties to consider and decide the claim but the opposite parties did not listen to the genuine requests of the complainant. It is further stated that in the provisional cover note No.894886 the name of the complainant is wrongly written as Bhupinder Singh instead of Devinder Singh. After that the complainant made a request to correct the name as Devinder Singh instead of Bhupinder Singh and after that the policy No.231100/47/2014/515 was issued on 14.03.2014 in which at first the name of complainant is correctly mentioned as Devinder Singh but in the risk information column, the name of the complainant is wrongly written as Bhupinder Singh, which clearly shows the malafide intention of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the opposite parties to pay the insured amount of Rs.50,000/- and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and litigation expenses.

 

3.              The complaint is contested by Opposite party No.1. In reply to the complaint it took preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and the complainant has not fulfilled all the required legal formalities.  On merits opposite party No.1 admitted that the complainant got insured two buffaloes and two cows with them vide Cattle Insurance Policy. OP No.1 further stated that on receipt of intimation about the alleged death of one buffalo from OP No.2 on 19.03.2014, they deputed Dr. N.K. Vohra, AIII, Investigator, Chandigarh, to investigate the alleged claim. The said investigator visited the dairy farm of complainant on 29.03.2014 and inspected the site of death of buffalo in the cattle shed of complainant. As per information received by him from the complainant, the animal remained sick for one month before the death. It was found by the investigator that there were nine buffaloes and two cows present at the time of spot verification. All the ear tags of the animals were in the hands of the complainant and he found that there was no tag in the ears of any buffalo standing there. The tag No. 20895/OIC, which was submitted by the complainant at that time, was quite new and the investigator has detected the same as it was never tagged in the ears of the animal. After due investigation made by the investigator, he prepared the investigation report in which he reported that No ear tag was found, hence, it is a case of “No Tag No Claim”. The complainant had not produced the required claim form duly completed & signed by him and rubber stamped and signed by the Civil Veterinary doctor and the postmortem report upto 17.04.2014. Therefore, a letter dated 17.04.2014 was issued for demanding the above said documents for processing the claim. Then on 12.05.2014 again a final notice was issued for demanding the said documents. The complainant has not completed the formalities required, inspite of the requests and demands made by opposite party No.1, hence, they closed the claim file as “ No Claim”. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.              Notice of the complaint was issued to OP No.2, who appeared through his representative Sh. Harbaksh Singh. But after appearing on two hearings no one has appeared on behalf of OP No.2 for filing written version. Hence, the defence of OP No.2 was struck off.

5.              In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. C-1, attested copy of policy Ex. C-2, attested copy of health certificate Ex. C-3, attested copy of claim applications Ex. C-4 & C-5, attested copy of certificate of doctor Ex. C-6, attested copy of photograph Ex. C-7, attested copy of application Ex. C-8, copy of policy schedule Ex. C-9 & C-10, attested copy of identity card Ex.C-11 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal the OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. A.K. Sehgal Ex. OP-1 along with true copies of documents Ex. OP-2 to Ex. OP-8 and affidavit of Sh. N.K. Vohra, Investigator as Ex. OP-9 and closed the evidence.

6.              The Ld.counsel for the OPs has submitted that his preliminary objections be adjudicated upon first before proceeding to decide the present complaint on merits. The ld. counsel stated that the present complaint is not maintainable as the same is premature and there are complicated facts involved which cannot be adjudicated upon in a summary manner. He submitted that notices were served upon the complainant to present certain documents, so that his claim can be decided as it is evident from Ex.OP7 and OP8. The ld. counsel submitted that the controversy in the present case can only be decided before the civil courts as there are also allegations of fraud committed by the complainant in order to get the claim amount released in his favour. The ld. counsel also stated that the evidence placed on record by the complaint is not good enough for him to succeed.

7.              On the other hand the ld. counsel for the complainant objected to the submissions made by the ld. counsel for the OPs and stated that from the facts of the case, it is evident that the OPs had closed the claim of the deceased cow of the complainant due to malafide reasons. He argued that the complainant had completed all the formalities as requested by the OPs but the claim of the complainant was closed by the OPs in order to extract money from the complainant. He prayed that the same be decided on merits in view of the evidence adduced by the parties and the complaint of the complainant be allowed.

8.              After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties on the point of maintainability of the present complaint and going through the pleadings and evidence, we find force in the submissions made by the ld. counsel for the OP. We may in this case refer to a decision of three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Synco Industries v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Ors. I (2002) CPJ 16 (SC) , in which Hon’ble Supreme Court observed; where complicated questions of law and facts are involved Forum under the Consumer Protection Act may not be a proper Forum to dispose of such a case in summary fashion. We feel in the present case also there are complicated questions of facts are involved, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Form. Accordingly, we are unable to decide the case in hand on merits hence; we return the present complaint. The complainant is granted the liberty to approach the appropriate Court of law and may be entitled to the benefit of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi En g Works V/s. P.gineerin S.G. Industrial Institute II(1995) CPJ 1 (SC) : 1995 3 SCC 583 for the purpose of exclusion of time spent before this Forum. The present complaint is disposed of with the aforementioned observation. Parties to bear the cost.

9.              The arguments on the complaint were heard on 27.07.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:28.07.2015

(A.P.S.Rajput)                            President

 

(Veena Chahal)                           Member

 

(A.B. Aggarwal)                          Member