STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. | 142 of 2011 | Date of Institution | 08.06.2011 | Date of Decision | 12.10.2011 |
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through Manager, Department of Misc. Claims, SCO 109-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh. .…Appellant Vs. Sarain Singh s/o Menga Singh resident of Village Bahera, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. …. Respondent BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER Present: Sh.G.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for the Appellant. Sh.Sunil K.Dixit, Advocate for the Respondent. --- MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the appellant/opposite party against the order, dated 03.05.2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only) in complaint case No. 407 of 2010 vide which, it allowed the complaint and directed the OP(now appellant) as under:- “Keeping in view the above discussion, we find enough merit in the complaint and are of the considered opinion that the present complaint must succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. The OP is directed to pay the insured amount of Rs.45,000/- along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the claim of the complainant. Furthermore, OP will pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony, harassment as well as litigation costs to the complainant. The order shall be complied with by the OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the OP would be liable to pay the aforesaid amount alongwith penal interest @18% p.a. instead @9% p.a., till the payment is actually made to the complainant”. 2. The facts, in brief are that, the respondent-complainant purchased 13 cows through Punjab National Bank Mubarikpur under the High Tech Dairy Scheme of Govt. of Punjab. It was stated that these animals were insured with the OP vide Policy No.231102/47/2010/0000383. It was further stated that out of the aforesaid animals one cow died on 7.10.2009. It was further stated that the Spot Investigator appointed by the OP verified the dead cow, took photographs after identification and submitted his report to the authorized service provider. The said report was sent to the OP alongwith the documents, which refused to accept the same with the objection that the concerned Bank had not countersigned the claim Form. It was further stated that the complainant approached the Financing Bank, but the Manager refused to sign the claim form on the plea that since the bank had not got the animals insured, hence he was not bound to countersign the same. Thereafter, the complainant brought this matter to the notice of the OP and completed all the formalities, but it did not pay the claim. A legal notice, in this connection, was served, upon the OP, but to no avail. It was further stated that the OP was deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice. 3. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no other alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed. 4. In its written reply, the OP stated that the dead cow was not insured with it. It was further stated that from the postmortem report and spot verification of the dead animal, it was evident that the Electronic Micro Chip No.0006E3E7A9, inserted in the body of the animal, at the time of insurance, could not be located. It was further stated that the dead animal, in question, was not the one out of the 13 cows insured. It was further stated that the complainant raised the claim for the dead cow, which was not insured, and hence the same was rightly and legally repudiated by the OP. It was stated that, the OP was neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice. 5. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case. 6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, allowed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/OP. 8. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant/OP contended that the District Forum failed to appreciate the basic necessity and utility of inserting a micro chip, in the animal, at the time of providing the insurance cover, and thus, wrongly allowed the complaint by placing reliance on the spot verification report dated 11.10.2009 (Annexure C-4) in which it was mentioned that the description of the cow, under reference, had been recorded in sheet no.1 at Sr.No.5, which carried the description of 10 cows. It was further contended that while allowing the complaint the District Forum ignored the fact that in the absence of the electronic micro chip, which was inserted, in the body of the cow, it could not be ascertained that the dead cow was the same which was insured with the OP. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the complainant purchased 13 cows through Punjab National Bank Mubarakpur under the High Tech Dairy Scheme of Govt. of Punjab which were duly insured with OP Insurance Company vide Policy No.231102/47/2010/0000383. It was further contended that out of the insured cows, one cow died on 7.10.2009 and the Spot Investigator appointed by the OP verified the dead cow and took photographs after identification. He further submitted that the investigator’s report furnished to the authorized service provider, and the same was sent to OP alongwith documents, which refused to accept the same on the plea that the Financing Bank had not countersigned the claim Form. It was further contended that the District Forum rightly allowed the complaint by placing reliance on Annexure C-4. 11. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be accepted, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. From the post mortem report dated 08.10.2009 (Annexure C-3), it is evident that the micro chip inserted inside the body of the cow could not be located. In the absence of existence of electronic micro chip, in the dead body of the cow, its identity could not be conclusively established. In these circumstances, no reliance could be placed, on the verification report dated 11.10.2009 (Annexure C-4) wherein it was mentioned that the cow which died on 07.10.2009, was of brownish white colour and the description of that cow resembled with the cow the description whereof had been mentioned at Sr.no.5 in the insurance cover. In our opinion, if the physical appearance and the colour of the body of cow were the only criterion for the identification of any insured animal, then what was the use of inserting electronic micro chip inside its body. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the District Forum erred by allowing the complaint. The District Forum also wrongly placed reliance on the judgment mentioned in para no.8 of the impugned order because the facts of the present case are completely distinguishable from the facts of the case-New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kitab Singh,(1) 2005 CPJ-412. In New India Assurance Co’s case (supra),a tag was externally tied with the ear of the insured animal and the chances of misplacement of the same could not be ruled out. In the instant case, as stated above, the micro chip had been inserted inside the body of the cow, and therefore, there could not be any chance for misplacement of the same. Since the complainant failed to prove the identity of the dead cow, as the one, which was insured with the OP, the latter was right in repudiating the claim. The OP, was thus, not deficient in rendering service. The order of the District Forum being perverse is liable to be set aside. 12 No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties. 13. For the reasons recorded above, we are unable to concur with the findings rendered by the District Forum. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order dated 03.05.2011 is set aside. The parties are left to bear their own costs. 14. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 15. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion. Pronounced. Sd/- 12.10.2011 [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER] PRESIDENT cmg sd/- [NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
