Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/6/2016

Surinder Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

S.L Jain

27 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR

Consumer Complaint No.         :     6 of 01.02.2016

Date of Decision:                    :     27.07.2016

Surinder Pal son of Sh.Gian Chand, Resident of Village Adoana, Tehsil Balachaur, District SBS Nagar.

                                                                             …Complainant

Versus

1. The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Ropar, Tehsil & District Ropar.
2. The Managing Director, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office Oriental House A-25/27, Asif Ali Road, New Delhi – 110002

          …Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

MRS.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

ARGUED BY:

For complainant              :         Sh.Suresh Kataria, Advocate

For OPs                          :         Sh.P.K. Dhir, Advocate

ORDER

MRS.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

1.       Surinder Pal has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as OPs) Praying for the following reliefs:-

1. To to pay the insurance claim of Rs.50,000/- to complainant.
2. To pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. To pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation on account of harassment suffered by him.

2.       In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a cow for a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 26.08.2013 which was very hale and hearty and was about 6 years of age.  He got loan from Balachaur Primary Co-operative Agriculture Bank, Branch Office Balachaur for purchasing the said cow.  He got insured the said cow from the OPs to cover any kind of risk regarding the cow and Murki No.1043 was affixed in the ear of said cow by official of OPs at the time of issuance of policy.  Unluckily, the said cow died and postmortem was got conducted by the doctor.  He informed the official of the concerned bank and OPs sent a surveyor. He supplied the all the documents to the surveyor of the company and surveyor has submitted all the claim documents to the OPs but inspite of that the OPs did not pay him the insurance amount and had illegally repudiated his claim on 28.03.2014. Hence this complaint.

3.       On being put to notice, OPs have filed joint written version taking preliminary objections that that complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no locus standi; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. On merits, it is stated that it is correct that the cow was insured with OP No.1 but the ear tag No.1043/OIC was issued to the buffalo and not the cow. There is no dispute about death of cow and about conducting postmortem. OP No.1 deputed investigator Sh.Santokh Singh Mann for spot verification of dead cow of Surinder Pal who submitted his report with OP No.1. OP No.1 repudiated the claim of the complainant with description of the dead animal did not match with the policy and health certificate.  As per spot verification and report of Sh.S.S. Mann, investigator, Ear Tag NO.1043/OIC not received because the tag No.1043/OIC issued to buffalo and not to the cow.  Hence, as per law “No tag, No claim”. OP No.1 had repudiated the claim of the complainant with legal ground.  As per the Health Certificate and insurance policy the tag No.1074/OIC was issued to dead cow.  Rest of the allegations made in the complaint are empathically denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.       On being called to do so, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, alongwith documents i.e. receipt dated 26.08.2013 Ex.C-1, letter dated 28.03.2014 Ex.C-2, copy of letter regarding information to the Branch Manager Ex.C-3, copy of document regarding statement of complainant dated 26.11.2013 verified by Namardar Ex.C-4, copy of valuation certificate Ex.C-5, copy of policy Ex.C-6, copy of postmortem Ex.C-7, copy of cover note Ex.C-8, photographs Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-11, affidavit of Darshan Lal S/o Sant Ram Ex.CW/B and closed the evidence.  Learned counsel for OPs has tendered affidavit of Sh.B.K. Goyal, Senior Branch Manager Ex.OPA alongwith documents i.e. copy of letter dated 28.03.2014 Ex.OP-1, copy of compliance Section 64VB Ex.OP-2, copy of claim form Ex.OP-3, copy of claim form cum valuation certificate Ex.OP-4, copy of postmortem certificate Ex.OP-5, copy of investigation report Ex.OP-6, copy of letter dated 26.11.2013 Ex.OP-7, copy of health certificate Ex.OP-8, copy of insurance policy Ex.OP-9 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.  

5.       We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.

6.       The Learned counsel for the OPs raised objection that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter, because complainant has taken the policy in question from the OP No.1 which is situated at District Ropar. To this effect, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that after obtaining the loan from the Balachaur Primary Co-operative  Agricultural Bank, on 26.08.2013, he purchased a cow from Sh.Darshan Lal by paying Rs.50,000/- at Balachaur, District SBS Nagar.  He got insured the said cow from Op No.1 and the official of OPs came to his residence at District SBS Nagar for spot verification before issuance of insurance policy and also for affixing tag in the ear of said cow. Thus, it is clear that OPs are carrying on business within the territory of District SBS Nagar, therefore this forum has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate matter and the objections raised by OPs is baseless.  We find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the complainant because it is convenient for the official of the insurance company to visit the residence of the complainant for spot verification of the said cow for the purpose of insurance and also for affixing the ear tag because it is neither feasible nor practical to bring the cow for insurance in the office of OP No.1 which is situated at Ropar

Since, OPs are carrying on business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and a part of cause of action has arisen at Balachaur (Nawanshahr).  Therefore, as per Section -11 of C.P. Act, 1986, this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter and the objection raised by counsel for OPs is not tenable, hence rejected.

7.       From the perusal of the policy schedule Ex.OP-9, it is evident that one cow and one buffalo of the complainant were insured on 27.08.2013.  The said policy shows that a tag No.1043 was affixed in the ear of Buffalo and a tag No.1074 was affixed in the ear of cow.  However, the cover note dated 27.08.2013 – Ex.C-8, shows that ear tag No.1043 was affixed in the ear of cow and 1047 was affixed in the ear of buffalo.  No doubt there is discrepancy between the tag number of the insured animal in the cover note and the policy schedule.  The clinching evidence in this case is the report of surveyor deputed by OPs, who has physically verified the tag affixed in the ear of the dead cow.  The said surveyor in his report, Ex.OP-6 stated that on 26.11.2013, he visited the premises of the complainant at Balachaur for spot verification of the dead cow and observed that a dead cow of “Colour black & White, FHW, dehorned, Tail Switch white, age 6 years, bearing Tag No.1043 was lying in the Haveli of the complainant and opined that the claim be settle as per terms and conditions of the policy. The observation of the surveyor has more credence and we tend to believe it thus we hold that OPs were not justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant.  Thus, complainant is not only entitled to get the insured amount of Rs.50,000/- but also entitled for compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses.    

8.       In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the Ops are directed in the following manner:-

1. To pay insurance claim of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
3. To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs.

9.       The Ops are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the OPs shall pay interest @9% per annum on the awarded amount besides litigation costs from the date of repudiation of the claim till payment.

10.       The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs, as per rules and file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Dated:  27.07.2016

                                                          (NEENA SANDHU)

                                                          President

         

                                                          (KANWALJEET SINGH)

                                                          Member