DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA
CC.No.242 of 01-06-2011
Decided on 10-01-2012
Harbhagwan Singh S/o Sh. Mukhtiar Singh, aged 45 years, Resident of village Khemuana, District Bathinda.
.......Complainant
Versus
Reliance General Insurance Ltd., SCO 212-214, First Floor, Sec.34A, Chandigarh, through its General Manager.
Sanjay Garg, Agent Reliance General Insurance Ltd., SCO No.5, Ahata Pritam Singh, Amrik singh Road, Bathinda.
(Deleted)
Reliance General Insurance Ltd., Reliance Office Prime SCO No.5, Ahata Pritam Singh, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda
through its Manager/ Incharge. (Deleted)
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President
Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member
Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh. K.S.Sidhu, counsel for the complainant
For Opposite parties: Sh. Sunder Gupta, counsel for opposite party No.1
Opposite party Nos.2&3 deleted
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased one Insurance Policy No.2001383942100 001, Tag No.R-10446 for his buffalo from the opposite party No.1 on 07.11.2009 through opposite party No.2 w.e.f. 07.11.2009 to 06.11.2010 and paid the premium amount of Rs.433/-. On 18.05.2010, the buffalo of the complainant fell ill and a proper treatment was got provided to the buffalo but it died on 02.06.2010. Thereafter, post mortem was also conducted by Dr. Jasbir Singh. The complainant lodged the claim with the opposite parties within specified period and completed all the required formalities but his claim was not settled by the opposite parties and repudiated his claim by leveling false allegations. Thereafter, the complainant also got served a legal notice dated 15.04.2011 to the opposite party but to no effect. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for seeking directions of this Forum to settle his Insurance claim on account of death of his buffalo alongwith cost and compensation.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite party No.1 after appearing before this Forum, has filed its written statement and pleaded that as per documents supplied by the complainant, the Insured cattle died on 02.06.2010 and fell ill before 18.05.2010 and the present insurance policy/ cover note bearing No.104463 was purchased on 07.11.2009 and the cattle has suffered from disease since when the Insurance Policy was purchased and the complainant has failed to take reasonable care to maintain and look after the animal due to which the insured cattle died as such the claim of the complainant is not payable. The opposite party No.1 has further pleaded that as per terms and conditions of the policy, the intimation regarding the death of the insured buffalo has to be given within 24 hours but the complainant has failed to do so as such the opposite party has repudiated the claim of the complainant. The opposite party No.1 has further pleaded that if this Forum comes to the conclusion that the insurance company is liable to pay any compensation, then the liability of the insurance is limited to Rs.30,000/- only being sum assured as per Health-cum-Evaluation Certificate.
3. The opposite party Nos.2&3 are deleted.
4. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
5. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
6. Admitted facts of the parties are that the buffalo of the complainant was insured vide Insurance Policy No.2001383942100001 and Cover Note No.104463, Tag No.R-10446 with the opposite party No.1 for the period from 07.11.2009 to 06.11.2010 against the payment of Rs.433/- as premium. The buffalo of the complainant died on 02.06.2010.
7. The contention of the complainant is that his buffalo fell ill on 18.05.2010 and a proper treatment was provided to the buffalo by the Veterinary doctor but it died on 02.06.2010 and the post mortem was conducted by Dr. Jasbir Singh. The complainant filed the claim of the said buffalo within time but the opposite parties have repudiated the claim of the complainant leveling false allegations. The complainant has also sent a legal notice to the opposite parties but no reply has been given to the said notice.
8. On the other hand, the opposite party No.1 has submitted that the buffalo of the complainant was ill before 18.05.2010 and the said Insurance Policy had obtained on 07.11.2009 and the cattle had suffered from disease since when the insurance policy was obtained and the insured/ complainant has failed to take reasonable care to maintain and look after the animal due to which his buffalo died. As per exclusion clause, the claim of the complainant is not payable. The opposite party No.1 has further submitted that the intimation regarding the death of insured buffalo was to be given within 24 hours but the complainant has failed to give the intimation of the death of buffalo within 24 hours. The said cattle was insured with the opposite party for Rs.30,000/-. The opposite party No.1 has further submitted that there is no branch office within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Thus, the fora has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint.
9. The Insurance claim has been sent through claim Form for Cattle Insurance Ex.C-4 in which the reasons of death was that the buffalo was anaemic and weak due to severe heat.
10. The claim was sent to the opposite party No.1 on 28.06.2010. the buffalo was died on 02.06.2010. The Death Certificate Ex.C-7 has been placed on file and it has been issued on 28.06.2010. The Post Mortem Report Ex.C-8 shows that the buffalo was anaemic unable to bear the severe heat developed due to atmospheric heat. In para No.13 of Ex.C-8, Dr. Jasbir Singh who conducted the post mortem of the buffalo, has given remarks, “Animal was well looked after prior to death. Owner is very-2 poor, very genuine case, needs to be compensated fully.”
This post mortem has been issued on 28.06.2010. The opposite parties have repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the intimation has not been given within 24 hours by the complainant.
11. Ex.R-1 i.e. an affidavit of Krishan Kant, Manager Legal, Reliance General Insurance Company. The relevant portion of this affidavit is reproduced as under:-
“As per documents supplied by the complainant, insured cattle died on 02.06.2010 and fell ill before 18.05.2010 and present insurance policy/cover note bearing No.104463 was obtained on 07.11.2009 and cattle has suffered from disease since when insurance policy was obtained and insured/ complainant had failed to take reasonable care to maintain and look after the animal due to which insured cattle has died. So claim of the complainant is not payable as per aforesaid exclusion clause.
As per terms and conditions of the policy, intimation regarding the death of insured animal has to be given within 24 hours but the insured has failed to give intimation of the dead animal within 24 hours to the replying opposite parties.
Although, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant, yet, if this Forum comes to the conclusion that the insurance company is liable to pay any compensation, then liability of insurance company is limited to Rs.30,000/- only, being sum insured as per Health-cum-Evaluation Certificate.”
12. A perusal of Ex.C-9 i.e. copy of Certificate of Insurance shows that the cattle insurance certificate has been signed by authorized signatory of Reliance General Insurance and insurance agent but this document has not been delivered to the complainant. The terms and conditions mentioned at the back of this certificate of insurance, have never conveyed to the complainant, no thumb impression or signatures of the complainant had been taken on this form by the opposite parties. The complainant was not aware of the terms and conditions as these were never supplied to him.
13. The opposite party No.1 has submitted that the deceased buffalo was suffering from pre-existing disease but no such evidence with regard to pre-existing disease has been placed on file by the opposite parties.
14. The legal objection taken by the opposite parties that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present compliant as the opposite party No.1 has no branch office at Bathinda. A perusal of record placed on file shows that the insurance cover note was issued at Bathinda, thus part of cause of action u/s 11(c) has arisen at Bathinda. Hence, this Forum has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint.
15. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1. Hence, this complaint is accepted with Rs.5,000/- as cost and compensation and the opposite party No.1 is directed to pay the IDV i.e. Rs.30,000/- to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case of non-compliance, interest @ 9% P.A. will yield on the amount of Rs.30,000/- till realization.
A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum
10.01.2012 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul)
Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
