BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.
Complaint No.131 of 2014
Instituted On: 13.11.2014
Decided On: 01.04.2015
Karam Singh son of Gurdial Singh resident of Chakar Road, Bhado Patti, Village Lopon, Tehsil Nihal Singh Wala District Moga
Complainant
Versus
1. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited A-501, 5th Floor, Building No.4, Infinity, I T Park, Dindhoshi Malad (E) Mumbai, 400097.
2. Tata AIG General Insurance Company care of State Bank of India, Branch Badhani Kalan, Tehsil Nihal Singh Wala District Moga through its Manager.
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 12 of The
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Coram: Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Smt Vinod Bala, Member
Smt Bhupinder Kaur
Present: Sh.Tajinder Singh, Advocate counsel for the complainant.
Sh.Jaswinder Singh , Advocate, counsel for OPs
C.C.No. 131 of 2014 //2//
ORDER
(S.S.Panesar, President)
Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) against the Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited A-501, 5th Floor, Building No.4, Infinity, I T Park, Dindhoshi Malad (E) Mumbai, 400097 (herein-after referred to as Insurance Company)-opposite parties directing them to pay the insurance claim amount, Rs.10,000/-on account of compensation for causing mental tension and harassment as well as costs of litigation.
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased insurance policy bearing No.0700012450 from the opposite parties vide which he got his cow insured with the opposite parties, which was valid from 07.04.2012 to 06.04.2015. It has been pleaded that TATA AIG has tie up with State Bank of India where the complainant was offered to insure his cow from the insurance company. The insurance company fixed a tag bearing No.R03879 in the ear of insured cow of the complainant. It has been further pleaded that at the time of issuance of insurance policy, the complainant was advised by the agent that in case any illness arose to the insured cow, he would have to intimate the matter to the opposite parties. Further it has been pleaded that in the month of June 2014, insured cow bearing No.R03879 fell ill and the complainant informed the opposite parties and the latter assured the complainant that they will send their
C.C.No. 131 of 2014 //3//
veterinary surgeon. But the opposite parties did not send any veterinary surgeon and ultimately on 18.06.2014, the said cow died. It has been further pleaded that even on the death of insured cow, no veterinarian approached the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant approached the private veterinarian, who examined the said cow and declared the same to be dead. The complainant approached the opposite parties and submitted all the requisite documents for allowing the claim. But the opposite parties did not give any satisfactory reply and ultimately letters dated 08.08.2014 and 19.09.2014 were issued to the complainant about the processing of the death claim of the cow bearing claim No.734517. Non releasing the claim amount to the complainant, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. The opposite parties have appeared through their counsel namely Sh Jasvinder Singh Advocate and filed joint written reply. They took up preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has got no locus standi; that the complaint is false and frivolous; that complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; that after receipt of information of loss, the carcass was inspected by an independent investigation agency on 05.08.2014 and at the time of inspection neither the complainant submitted
C.C.No. 131 of 2014 //4//
tag of the animal nor provided its tag loss report to the opposite parties, therefore, the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated vide letter dated 19.09.2014; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties rather the complainant himself has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by not providing the tag or the tag loss report. On merits, opposite parties took almost the same and similar pleas as taken up in the preliminary objections. All other allegations made in the complaint were specifically denied being incorrect and it is stated that the complaint deserves to be dismissed.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-8 and closed his evidence.
5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex.OP1&2/1 of Sh. Mohd Azhar Wasi, Head Claims and copies of documents Ex.O.P.1&2/2 to Ex. O.P.1&2/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite parties.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the record.
7. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that the cow of the complainant was insured by the opposite parties w.e.f. 07.04.2012 to 06.04.2015 vide insurance policy, copy whereof is Ex.C-6. In the month of June 2014, the insured cow bearing tag No.R03879 fell ill and the complainant intimated
C.C.No. 131 of 2014 //5//
the matter to the opposite parties, who assured the complainant that they will send their veterinary surgeon. But, however, the opposite parties did not send any veterinary surgeon and ultimately on 18.06.2014 the insured cow died. The complainant filed the insurance claim. But, however, the insurance claim was declined by the opposite parties vide letter Ex.C-7 on the ground that tag was not found on carcass at the time of inspection and the same was not submitted to the investigator. It is further stated vide letter Ex.C-8 that if the tag was lost, the complainant was required to provide tag loss report, which in this case has not been submitted. In this case the complainant admittedly intimated the opposite parties regarding the illness of the cow in dispute and the opposite parties assured the complainant that they would send their veterinary surgeon for the treatment of the cow. But, however, they did not provide any medical aid to the ailing cow and ultimately the cow expired on 18.06.2014, which was within the insured cover and as such the opposite parties were deficient in service and it is contended that the complaint may be allowed in view of the prayer.
8. However, on the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties has vehemently contended that claim is not to be granted simply on the basis of the insurance policy attached with the complaint. The cow in dispute was allotted tag No. R03879 and it was incumbent upon the complainant to produce the same at the time of inspection made by the surveyor. Rather ear tag must have been there on the carcass of the cow so as to connect the same with the insured cattle. But, in the case in hand, the
C.C.No. 131 of 2014 //6//
complainant has failed to connect the animal in dispute with the insured cattle. The claim of the complainant has been declined legally and it is contended that the opposite parties are not deficient in service. The complaint is nothing, but an abuse of process of law and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.
9. We have given thoughtful consideration to rival contentions.
10. There is no dispute that the cow bearing tag No. R03879 was insured by the complainant on 07.04.2012 and the insurance was valid uptil 06.04.2015, copy of the insurance policy is Ex.C-6. It is the case of the complainant that the insured cattle died due to illness and the claim filed by him was declined by the opposite parties. However, in our considered opinion the claim of the complainant has rightly been declined by the opposite parties because at the time of the inspection made by the surveyor of the opposite parties, dead cattle did not bear any ear tag. In such a situation, the dead cattle cannot be identified to be the cattle insured vide insurance policy, copy whereof is Ex.C-6. It was incumbent upon the complainant to have intimated the opposite parties regarding the loss of the ear tag and for supplying a fresh ear tag to the opposite parties immediately. But, however, in this case, neither loss of the ear tag has been intimated nor any request was made to issue a fresh ear tag. As per Clause 11 of the Insurance Policy, the opposite parties were justified in declining the claim. Clause 11 of the Insurance Policy is reproduced as under for
C.C.No. 131 of 2014 //7//
ready reference:-
“No Tag No claim: Not withstanding anything to the contrary
contained herein, it is hereby understood and agreed that in the event of death of the animal/s covered under the policy, claim/s shall not be entertained unless the intact Ear tag/s with ear piece is surrendered to the company. In the event of loss of Ear tag/s it is the responsibility of the insured to give immediate notice to the company and get the animal/s re-tagged.”
Since the complainant has failed to prove that dead animal was the same animal, which was insured vide insurance policy, copy whereof is Ex.C-6 on record, therefore, no fault can be found on the part of the opposite parties for declining the claim. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and, therefore, the instant complaint fails and same is ordered to be dismissed accordingly. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost immediately and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
(Bhupinder Kaur) (Vinod Bala) (S.S.Panesar)
Member Member President
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated:01.04.2015.
