District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tarn Taran (Punjab)
Consumer complaint No : 43 of 2015
Date of Institution :05.08.2015
Date of Decision :11.02.2016
Zorawar Singh son of Waryam Singh, resident of village Patti, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran
…Complainant
Versus
- Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. having its District Office at Sarhali Road Tarn Taran above State Bank of India, Sarhali Road Branch near Satkar Palace, Sarhali Road Tarn Taran, through its Senior Branch Manager.
- The Patti Primary Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. Patti through its Manager.
- Dr. Gurdeep Singh, CVH Varnala Patti, Tarn Taran
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present:
For the complainant Sh. H.S. Sandhu Advocate
For the Opposite party No. 1 Sh. D.K. Kondura Advocate
For the Opposite party No. 2 Exparte on 17.9.2015
For the opposite party No. 3 Exparte on 17.9.2015
Coram: Sh. S.S. Panesar, President.
Sh. R.D. Sharma, Member.
Smt.Jaswinder Kaur, Member
(Sh. S.S. Panesar, President)
- The complainant Zorawar Singh has brought the instant complaint under Section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after called as ‘the Act’) against Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (herein-after called as ‘Opposite Party No. 1’), The Patti Primary Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. (herein-after called as ‘Opposite Party No. 2’) and Dr. Gurdeep Singh, CVH Varnala (herein-after called as ‘Opposite Party No. 3’), supported by various documents leveling allegations of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
- Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant is a farmer and has bred some buffalos for his dairy needs. To purchase those buffalos the complainant had availed loan from opposite party No.2. The average market price of each buffalo was to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. The complainant got these buffaloes insured with opposite party No. 1 on the recommendation of opposite party No.2 by paying premium to the tune of Rs. 7,640/- vide voucher No. 7 dated 3.1.2014 with opposite party No. 1 through opposite party No. 2. The insurance policy was valid between the time of payment of premium for further period of one year for 4 buffalos. Before getting the buffalos insured fitness certificate of each buffalo was obtained by the complainant from the Veterinary Officer Dr. Gurdeep Singh (opposite party No. 3) on 10.12.2013. On 26.7.2014, one of the buffalos having colour black, horns curved, ST white, age about 7 years with a market value of Rs. 50,000/-, as per evaluation of opposite party No. 3 with insurance cover of Rs. 50,000/-, died at about 9.30 A.M. Complainant immediately informed about the death of buffalo to Opposite parties No. 1 and 3. On receipt of intimation, opposite party No. 1 sent its representative/ investigator Sandeep Dutta and opposite party No. 3 himself visited the spot where the dead buffalo was lying. Opposite party No. 3, after conducting post mortem examination, handed over the report to the complainant and copy of the same was also supplied to the investigator of opposite party No. 1. Livestock claim form of opposite party No. 1 was filled up by opposite party No. 3 on the spot and was handed over to investigator of Opposite Party No.1. Complainant also supplied all the relevant and necessary documents, such as post mortem report, photographs duly attested by Dr. Gurdeep Singh of the dead buffalo and copy of claim form dated 26.7.2014 alongwith other particulars to Opposite Party No.2. Opposite Party No.2 sent those documents to Opposite Party No.1 vide reference No. 192/PADB dated 20.8.2014, so as to complete the formalities regarding the process of claim. Opposite parties No. 1 and 2 assured the complainant that insurance claim of dead buffalo will be released to the complainant very soon. But the claim was not released in favour of complainant despite number of visits made by him to the office of Opposite Party No.1. The cause of action arose in favour of complainant against Opposite Party No.1 on 28.7.2015 when Opposite Party No.1 finally refused to release the insurance claim. Hence the present complaint.
- Upon notice Opposite Party No.1 appeared through counsel Sh.D.K. Kondura Advocate and also filed written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 duly served but they did not appear to contest the case and as such, Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 were ordered to be proceeded against exparte.
- In written reply Opposite Party No.1 took preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law because complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. No tag has been traced out from the body of dead buffalo, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any claim in view of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy; that no intimation has been given to the insurance company regarding the death of buffalo in question; that buffalo who died in the instant case did not belong to the complainant, rather it was Nishan Singh son of Gurbachan Singh who was owner of the buffalo in dispute. Nishan Singh also moved an application to the Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Company Tarn Taran wherein it was stated that the complainant in-connivance with Dr. Gurdeep Singh has committed fraud for getting the claim. On Merits, It is denied that the complainant availed a loan through opposite party No. 2 in respect of buffalo in dispute. It is further denied that the market price of the buffalo in dispute was to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. It is denied that on 26.7.2014 the buffalo, which was insured with the insurance company, had died. No tag has been traced out from the dead body of buffalo so as to identity the same. No information has been given to the insurance company regarding the death of buffalo. The buffalo in dispute belonged to Nishan Singh son of Gurbachan Singh and same was not insured with the Opposite Party No.1. The question of supplying Post Mortem Report or other documents for releasing of claim does not arise because buffalo in dispute was not insured with the Opposite Party No.1. It is denied that the complainant visited several times for releasing the claim. Opposite Party No.1 never deputed Sandeep Dutta as investigator in this case. The alleged report purported to be prepared by the investigator is forged and fabricated at the instance of complainant himself. It is denied that there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1. It is denied that any harassment or mental agony or pain took place to the complainant for grant of the claim and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint alongwith costs has been made.
- In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered in to evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex. C1 alongwith documents i.e. copy of letter dated 9.1.2015 Ex. C2, copy of letter dated 20.8.2014 Ex. C3, copy of material fitness certificate Ex. C4, Copy of Livestock claim form Ex. C5, Copy of Post mortem report dated 26.7.2014 Ex. C.6,Copy of letter dated 9.1.2015 mark A, Copy of medical fitness certificate mark B, medical fitness certificate mark C and photographs mark D to G and closed the evidence.
- To rebut the case of complainant, the opposite party No 1 tendered in evidence duly sworn affidavit of Gurdeep Singh D.M. Ex.OP1/1 alongwith documents i.e. claim intimation register Ex. OP1/2, conditions of insurance policy Ex. OP1/3, Letter addressed to Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Company Ex. OP1/4 and copy of affidavit of Guronkar Singh Ex. OP1/5 and closed the evidence.
7 We have heard Ld. counsel for complainant as well as Ld. counsel for opposite party No. 1 and have also carefully gone through the record placed on file.
8 Ld. counsel for Opposite Party No.1 has vehemently contended that the complaint in the present form is not maintainable because the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy copy whereof is Ex. OP1/3 clause No. 11 states that no claim is payable in case no tag was found from the dead animal. In the instant case, no tag has been traced out from the dead body of the buffalo and it is contended that the complainant is not entitled to any claim.
9 Ld. counsel for Opposite Party No.1 has further contended that no intimation regarding the death of buffalo in dispute was given to the insurance company. Copy of claims intimation register Ex. OP1/2 w.e.f. 5.6.2014 up to 17.9.2015 clearly shows that no such intimation was ever given by the complainant nor any such information was received by Opposite Party No.1 in this connection. Intimation register is regularly maintained by Opposite Party No.1 in due course of its business and presumption of truth is attached to the entries made therein. Even, on that account present complaint as framed is not maintainable and the complaint is liable to be dismissed being pre mature.
10 Ld. counsel for Opposite Party No.1 has further contended that buffalo who has died did not belong to the complainant, rather it belonged to Nishan Singh son of Gurbachan Singh resident of Patti, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran. Nishan Singh also moved an application addressed to the Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Company Tarn Taran to the effect that the complainant in-connivance with Dr. Gurdeep Singh has tried to get claim of the cattle in dispute to defraud Opposite Party No.1. Nishan Singh has further requested the Branch Manager by moving an application copy whereof is Ex. OP1/4, for getting the criminal case registered against the complainant after making inquiry in to the matter. On account of aforesaid assertions, it has been vehemently contended that instant complaint is liable to be dismissed. The present complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law. There is no deficiency or negligence on the part of Opposite Party No.1 and complaint in question may be dismissed with costs.
11 On the other hand, Ld. counsel for complainant has vehemently contended that the arguments put forward by the Ld. counsel for Opposite Party No.1 are not tenable. Intimation regarding death of buffalo in dispute was immediately given to Opposite Party No.1 and investigator Sandeep Dutta accompanied by Gurdeep Singh Veterinary Doctor visited the spot for investigation. The investigator sent his report dated 9.1.2015 regarding the investigation made by him on the spot copy whereof is mark ‘A’. It is also found mentioned therein that the ear tag of dead buffalo was intact on 26.7.2014. Said Sandeep Dutta is the investigator appointed by Opposite Party No.1 for settling the insurance claim. If Sandeep Dutta visited the spot in the instant case without authorization of Opposite Party No.1 or he alongwith the complainant tried to play fraud upon Opposite Party No.1, it was incumbent upon Opposite Party No.1 to initiate some legal action against Sandeep Dutta or complainant. But, however, no action has been initiated by Opposite Party No.1 for reasons best known to it.
12 It has been further case of Opposite Party No.1 that the complaint was pre mature. But however, the complaint is not pre mature because on the receipt of intimation, the investigator appointed by Opposite Party No.1 accompanied by Veterinary Doctor visited the spot and the report was sent to Opposite Party No.1 regarding the death of buffalo and the complainant submitted the claim accompanied by the report of investigator with Opposite Party No.1 but Opposite Party No.1 did not release the claim. Had Opposite Party No.1 been that sure that instant complaint was pre mature, it could i.e. at the very thresh hold state before the Forum that no claim has been placed before them and the complaint may be dismissed being pre mature. But, however no such plea was taken by Opposite Party No.1 for the reasons best known to it. The complaint is being contested tooth and nail w.e.f. 5.8.2015 till date which shows that this plea has been taken by Opposite Party No.1 just to delay and prolong the matter and Opposite Party No.1 has no intention to settle the claim.
13 Ld. counsel for complainant has further contended that even the plea of Opposite Party No.1 that buffalo in dispute belonged to Nishan Singh and the complainant had no connection with the same also does not cut any ice. Medical fitness certificate, copy whereof is mark ‘C’ on record, shows that Zorawar Singh complainant had purchased the buffalo in dispute from Nishan Singh son of Gurbachan Singh resident of Patti who is stated to have moved an application with Opposite Party No.1, copy whereof is Ex. OP1/4 on record. Sale regarding moveable goods is complete by transfer of custody of the goods. The buffalo was in custody and possession of complainant Zorawar Singh when this cattle alongwith other cattle was insured with Opposite Party No.1 and the same was in possession/ custody of the complainant when it died on 26.7.2014. Moreover, Nishan Singh was the best person to be examined in this Forum to dislodge the claim of the complainant, however, for the reasons best known to the opposite party No. 1, Nishan Singh was not produced before this Forum as a witness. Non production of Nishan Singh as witness goes to the root of the case of the opposite party No. 1 and it is contended that Opposite Party No.1 has no legs to stand on and it has taken false pleas to dislodge the lawful claim of the complainant. It is contended that claim for Rs. 50,000/- insured sum of the buffalo alongwith compensation for mental tension and physical pain to the tune of Rs.10,000/- as well as litigation expenses may be granted in favour of complainant.
14 We have given thoughtful consideration to rival contentions.
15 From the facts and circumstances of the case it becomes apparent that the complainant got the cattle in dispute alongwith three more buffalos insured from opposite party No. 1 and this fact is not denied by Opposite Party No.1. It is also proved on record that one of the buffalo died on 26.7.2014. Post mortem report of the same accounts for Ex. C.6. The complainant intimated Opposite Party No.1 regarding the death of the buffalo in dispute and investigator namely Sandeep Dutta accompanied by Veterinary Doctor visited the spot. The Veterinary Doctor prepared the post mortem report while investigator sent the investigation report to Opposite Party No.1 for sanctioning the claim. The contention of Opposite Party No.1 that “no tag no claim” is applicable in this case is of no avail because report of the investigator mark ‘A’ clearly states that buffalo in dispute was having the tag intact on its body. The contention that the investigator was not appointed by Opposite Party No.1 for making investigation or that report of the investigator has been obtained by the complainant by practicing fraud, has no takers because Opposite Party No.1 did not initiate any action either Departmental or Criminal against the investigator so far. Had, the report of the investigator been fabricated at the instance of complainant it was nothing but natural on the part of Opposite Party No.1 to initiate legal action against the investigator.
16 The further fact that the complaint was pre mature or that no claim was formally lodged by the complainant before filing the instant complaint is also not acceptable because Opposite Party No.1 contested the claim of the complainant tooth and nail through out. Had, there been no formal application for claim, there was absolutely no necessity for sending the investigator for spot investigation when the buffalo in dispute died. Moreover, since all the proceedings regarding the claim have been completed and the claim has been stated to be declined also go to show that the instant complaint was not pre mature. Even, otherwise also, Opposite Party No.1 could raise this contention at the very thresh hold before this Forum and matter could have been referred then and there for settling the claim. The mere fact that the claim is being opposed through out shows the intention of Opposite Party No.1 that they are not ready and willing to settle the claim of the complainant and complaint cannot be thrown out by holding that it has been filed pre maturely.
17 The other contention has been that buffalo in dispute belonged to one Nishan Singh son of Gubachan Singh and complainant was not the owner of the buffalo in dispute but, however, when at the time of getting the animal insured, it belonged to the complainant. The medical fitness certificate of buffalo in dispute was submitted to insurance company and perusal of document mark ‘C’ go to show that Zorawar Singh had purchased the buffalo in dispute from said Nishan Singh. The contention that Nishan Singh had later on moved an application for initiating action against the investigator as well as the complainant for committing fraud with Opposite Party No.1 has no force because qua goods title in the same vests in the vendee by transfer of possession. At the time of getting the insurance policy in dispute, the complainant happened to be in the custody of the animal in dispute and even at the time of death of animal, the complainant happened to be in possession of the animal. So, at this stage, it cannot be disputed that the complainant was not owner of the animal in dispute.
18 From the aforesaid discussion, it transpires that the complainant has been able to prove his case through cogent evidence on record. There is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1 because opposite party No. 1 has failed to honour the insurance claim of the complainant as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy in dispute. Consequently, the instant complaint succeeds and Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand only) i.e. insurance amount on account of the death of insured animal besides that the complainant is also entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand only) on account of mental tension and physical harassment besides that complainant is also entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. Two thousand only) as litigation expenses. Opposite Party No.1 is ordered to comply with this order within 30 days of the receipt of copy of order failing which the complainant shall be entitled to receive the awarded amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of passing of order until full and final satisfaction. No case is made out against the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, as such, the complaint against the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 stands dismissed accordingly. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs immediately and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated: 11.02.2016
(S.S. Panesar)
President
(Jaswinder Kaur) (R.D.Sharma)
Member Member
