THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 556 of 2014
Date of Institution : 21.10.2014
Date of Decision : 08.09.2015
Ranjit Singh son of S. Bachan Singh, Resident of Village Sansra Kalan, Tehsil Ajnala District Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
State Bank of Patiala, Branch Harsha Chinna, Tehsil Ajnala District Amritsar through its Branch Manager
United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Dharam Singh Market, Amritsar through its Divisional Manager
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh. S.S. Randhawa,Advocate
For the opposite party No. 1 : Ex-parte
For opposite party No.2 : Mrs. Neena Kapoor,Advocate
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by :-
-2-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Ranjit Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he has taken loan from opposite party No.1 vide loan account No. 65147215665 for running his dairy for earning his livelihood . According to the complainant he got his cattle insured from opposite party No.2 vide policy No. 200300/47/12/01/00000084 by making payment of premium of Rs. 32400/- for cattle ten in number, with insured value of Rs. 50000/- of each cattle. During the intervening night of 26/27.9.2013 one cow of the complainant died . The complainant reported the matter to opposite party No.1 on 27.9.2013 and opposite party No.1 referred the matter to opposite party No.2, who deputed Surinder Seth, Surveyor, who visited the spot and got recorded the statements of complainant and the sarpanch of the village . Postmortem of the dead cow was also got conducted from Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Raja Sansi by Dr. Manish Kumar Gupta. The complainant submitted all the relevant documents to the opposite parties for the settlement of the claim, but opposite party No.2 has not paid the claim to the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party No.2 to pay the insured amount of Rs. 50000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. Compensation of Rs. 10000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party No.2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the chip of the dead animal which is the most important thing to identify the animal, was missing and the same has been reported by the investigator in his report . It was submitted that the claim filed by the complainant was decided on sub standard basis and Rs. 37500/- was approved to be paid on sub standard basis. It was submitted that as the claim of Rs. 37500/- has already approved the claim vide letter dated 16.10.2014, but the complainant himself has not come forward to collect the same, therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-2, copy of letter dated 27.9.2013 Ex.C-3, copy of policy Ex.C-4, copy of claim form Ex.C-5.
4. Opposite party No.2 tendered affidavit of Sh.Baldev Singh,Divisional Manager Ex.OP2/1, copy of Insurance policy Ex.OP2/2, Investigation report Ex.OP2/3, settlement intimation Ex.OP2/4, letter dated 16.10.2014 Ex.OP2/5, terms and conditions of policy Ex.OP2/6.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties , it is clear that complainant got his cattle/cows (10 in numbers) insured with opposite party No.2 vide policy No. 200300/47/12/01/00000084. The insured value of each cattle/cow was Rs. 50000/-. The complainant submitted that on the intervening night of 26/27.9.2013, one cow of the complainant died. The matter was reported to opposite party No.1 on the same day i.e. 27.9.2013, who further informed opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 deputed Surinder Seth, investigator, who visited the spot and recorded the statements of the complainant and sarpanch of the village etc. Postmortem of the deceased cow was got conducted from Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Raja Sansi by Dr. Manish Kumar Gupta. Claim was lodged with the opposite parties alongwith all the relevant documents, but the opposite parties did not settle the claim of the complainant despite so many requests made by the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party No.2 is that the chip of the dead animal which is the most important thing to identify the animal was missing and this fact has been reported by the investigator in his report Ex.OP2/3 dated 27.6.2014 as well as the certificate issued by the doctor who conducted the postmortem on the dead cow Ex.OP1. As the chip of the animal was missing, so claim of the complainant was decided by opposite party No.2 on sub standard basis and claim of Rs. 37500/- of the complainant was approved by opposite party No.2 and the complainant was informed vide letter dated 16.10.2014 Ex.OP2. But the complainant did not come forward to collect the same. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the chip of the dead cow was missing, as reported by Dr. Manish Kumar Gupta, who conducted the postmortem on the dead cow in question, vide his certificate Ex.OP1 as well as by the investigator in his report dated 27.6.2014 Ex.OP2/3. The said chip was necessary to identify the insured animal. The doctor who conducted the postmortem of the dead cow vide his certificate Ex.OP1 dated 11.4.2014 has certified that no tag or chip was found on the animal even after thorough exploration in neck dissection . The postmortem and search for the chip was done in the presence of Mr. S.K.Seth, Investigator of the opposite party. So it stands fully proved on record that the chip was not found in the neck of the dead cow. However, the investigator appointed by the opposite party Sh.S.K.Seth in his report Ex.OP2/3 has stated that description of the dead cow was tallied with the description as mentioned in SR.2 of the health certificate. So the opposite party has decided to settle the claim of the complainant on sub standard basis i.e. 75% of the insured amount which amounts to Rs. 37500/-.
9. In these circumstances , this Forum is of the view that opposite party No.2 was justified in settling the claim case of the complainant on sub standard basis to the extent of 75% of the insured amount and the opposite party No.2 wrote letter dated 16.10.2014 Ex.OP2/5 to the complainant to collect this amount by furnishing discharge voucher as full and final settlement of the claim.
10. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that the investigator has recommended the claim case of the complainant vide his report Ex.OP2/3 for the settlement of the claim of the complainant at Rs.. 47000/-, so the opposite party No.2 should accept the recommendation of the surveyor appointed by the opposite party itself. Here we do not agree with this contention of the Ld.counsel for the complainant because investigator has no authority to settle the claim of the complainant , the final authority is the opposite party. The investigator is only to submit the report regarding the factual position of the death of the cow and not to settle the claim of the insured cow.
11. So from the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that opposite party was justified in settling the claim of the complainant on sub standard basis to the extent of 75% of the insured amount to the extent of Rs. 37500/- vide letter dated 16.10.2014 and the complainant may collect this amount from opposite party No.2.
12. Resultantly we hold that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
13. Consequently we hold that complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
08.09.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
