DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CAMP COURT AT LUDHIANA

Received by way of transfer Consumer Complaint No.8 of 2018

                                            Date of institution:02.01.2018

                                            Date of Decision:17.10.2022

Maninderjit Singh aged about 25 years, son of Sh. Chamkaur Singh, resident of Village and Post Office Pakhowal, Tehsil Raikot, District Ludhiana

…….Complainant

Versus

1. SBI General Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager/concerned official, Sahni Plaza Ground Floor, Near Dada Motors and Indian Oil Petrol Pump, GT Delhi Road, Dholewal Chowk, Ludhiana.  
2. SBI General Insurance Company Limited through its concerned official having its registered/head office Natraj, 101, 201, 301, Junction of Western Express Highway and Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai 

                                                          ……..Opposite Parties

 QUORUM:   

   HON’BLE MR. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT.

                  HON’BLE MRS. RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER

PRESENT:

Sh.Swaraj Pal Sooden, Adv. for complainant

Sh. Gagandeep Singh, Adv. for OPs

ORDER

RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

1. The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the Opposite Parties on the ground that the complainant has obtained loan from State Bank of Patiala now know as State Bank of India under the account No.65231793037. The complainant, who is a simple person and is living in a village and has obtained loan from the State Bank of Patiala now known As State Bank of India for Agriculture/Dairy purpose with the hope that with this financial assistance from the Bank, he may have a good life in future and he may progress in his agriculture/dairy fields by giving his hard work. Being a simple person and almost illiterate personality, the complainant wholly solely relied upon the branch manager of the Bank for loan transactions. The Branch Manager of the bank trapped the complainant that he will provide insurance for cattle of complainant for whom the complainant has obtained loan from the bank. The branch manager gave assurances to the complainant that his cattles fully insured with the policy No.00000000003332961 for the period from 16.09.2015 to 15.09.2018 and in case anything wrong happed to the cattles of the complainant, the insurance company will provide full claim in any mishappening occurred to the cattles of the complainant. Believing his words to be true, the complainant agreed to get insurance policy and signed the papers at the instance of Branch Manager of the Bank. The complainant is not disclosing fully particulars at this stage that the branch manager has obtained how much from the complainant and how much money he deducted by his own by misrepresenting to the complainant with regard to the premium of the policy as branch manager was within the knowledge with regard to the illiteracy and simple personality being village of the complainant. The complainant will give full and proper detail the act and conduct of the branch manager and money retained from the complainant by keeping the complainant in dark by Branch Manager and the Ops No.1 & 2 as well as in collusion with each other. Unfortunately, six cattles out of 10 cattles insured with the OPs were lost on 27.4.2017 and the complainant was having only four cattles with him. Thereafter, out of four cattles, remaining three cattles also died on account of some mysterious diseases and then the complainant remained with only one cattle, out of 10 cattles. Due to the bad luck of the complainant, the last cattle also died under mysterious disease. After serving the reminder cum legal notice to the OPs, four cattles have been died out of ten cattles and the complainant requested the Branch Manager of the Bank and the concerned persons of the Ops to make good the deficiency and provide the insurance amount to the complainant as per the policy. Whenever, the complainant requested the Ops to compensate the loss but the OPs in connivance with the said Branch Manager linger on the matter on one pretext or the other. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Therefore, the complainant prayed for the following reliefs against the OPs:- 

1. To pay the claim amount of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of legal notice served to the Ops

2. To pay Rs.11,000/- as counsel fee.

3. Any other additional or alternative relief to which the complainant is found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case to the complainant.

2. Upon notice, the OPs have filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has mislead this Hon’ble Commission; that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint; that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Hon’ble Commission. On merits, it is stated that the answering OP after having the claim lodged by the complainant vide claim No.372603 duly appointed an IRDA licensed independent investigator M/s Auto Investigators to inspect the loss and to submit his report based on the terms and conditions of the policy. The investigator without prejudice to the policy conditions inspected the loss and submitted its report. After going through the said report as well as the relevant documents and after scrutinizing the same, the answering OP came to the conclusion that the loss considered during the course of investigation is not consistent with the element of peril insured i.e. subject policy under which claim has been intimated is cattle insurance policy and does not cover theft as cause of loss, hence the said claim falls beyond the purview of the policy coverage as per its general exclusion No.4. So in view of the observations and investigations made by the answering OP it is very much clear that the claim of the complainant is not tenable in the eyes of law. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OPs and prayed for dismissal the complaint   
3. In support of the complaint, the complainant has tendered various documents. On the other hand, the OPs has also tendered documents in support of their evidence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.
5. From the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, the OPs has repudiated the claim on flimsy grounds. The  four cattles of the complainant covered under the insurance policy. The complainant is entitled to the claim. The insurance company cannot reject the legitimate claim of the complainant on technical and flimsy ground.  
6. Hence, the case of the complainant succeeded and the insurance company is liable to pay the insurance claim of four cattles of the complainant and pay Rs.2,40,000/- i.e. Rs.60,000/- for each cattle along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim of the complainant.  The complainant is also entitled to pay compensation amount of Rs.35000/- as compensation with Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The file be sent back to the District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana, for consigning the same to the Record Room.
7.  

October 17, 2022

(Ranjit Singh)

(Ranvir Kaur)