Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1474/2021

Navjeet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. A.S. Dullat

30 Jul 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                        Complaint No. 1474

 Instituted on:   20.12.2021

                                                                        Decided on:     30.07.2024

 

Navjeet Kaur wife of Jeet Singh, resident of Village Loha Khera, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                         …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.             The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune-411006 through its General Manager.

2.             The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company,  Sandh Towers, 5^th Floor, B-XX-3369, Gurdev Nagar, Ferozpur Road, Ludhiana through its Manager 141001.

3.             The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, Opposite D.C. Kothi, Sangrur through its Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant    :       Shri A.S.Dullat, Adv.

For Opp.parties           :       Shri Bhushan Kumar Garg, Adv.

 

Quorum                                           

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

                        Kanwaljeet Singh, Member

 

ORDER

SARITA GARG, MEMBER

1.             Complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties  on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OPs by getting insured her one cow and one buffalo vide policy dated 25.4.2021 against the requisite payment of Rs.4720/- vide receipt number 3591 00011193 dated 21.4.2021 to 21.4.2022 and the sum assured of the buffalo was Rs.60000/- whereas the cow was to the tune of Rs.40000/-. The OPs also got the health certificate of both the animals from the department of Animal Husbandry before issuance of the insurance policy.  The grievance of the complainant is that cow of the complainant suffered from fever and as such was taken to Veterinary Hospital, Longowal, District Sangrur but unfortunately cow died on 10.07.2021 due to fever, where  post-mortem of cow was also conducted on the same day and report to this effect was given on 12.07.2021.  Thereafter the complainant sent the request through registered post on 13.7.2021 to the OPs for release of the claim amount, but the OPs did not give any reply till today. Further case of complainant is that the complainant also got served a legal notice upon the OPs number 1 and 2 on 12.11.2021, but no reply thereto was given by them.  Thus, alleging  deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant claim amount of Rs.40,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by OPs, preliminary objections are taken up on the ground that the complaint is gross abuse of process of law, that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and that the complaint is not tenable under the provisions of law, that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the cow in question was insured with the OPs. It is also not in dispute that the cow in question died on 10.07.2021 and thereafter the post-mortem was conducted on the cow by the Veterinary Doctor  and the complainant got registered the claim with the OPs. It is further mentioned that the complainant has intimated the claim after 3 days i.e. on 13.7.2021 and as per the terms and conditions of the policy, in the event of death of the insured animal, insured shall give company an opportunity of inspecting the carcass until at lease the expiration of 24 hours after such notice shall have given to the company, however, no such intimation was given to the OPs after the death of cattle. As such the claim of the complainant was rightly closed as ‘No Claim’ vide letter dated 19.08.2021.  It is stated further that the OPs sent the complainant three emails on 13.7.2021, 28.7.2021 and 7.8.2021 and asked to provide complete documents and reason of disposing the cattle prior to investigation/inspection by the OPs but no reply was given by the complainant.  Lastly, the OPs have prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP/9 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

4.             We have gone through the pleadings put in by  the parties along with their supporting documents with their valuable assistance. 

5.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that complainant availed the services of the OPs by getting insured her one cow and one buffalo vide policy dated 25.4.2021 against the requisite payment of Rs.4720/- as premium vide receipt number 3591 00011193 dated 21.4.2021 for the period from 21.4.2021 to 21.4.2022 and the sum assured of the buffalo was Rs.60000/- whereas the cow was insured to the tune of Rs.40,000/- as is evident from the copy of receipt Ex.C-2. Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 are the copies of health certificates of the insured animals obtained  from the department of Animal Husbandry before issuance of the insurance policy.  The grievance of the complainant is that cow of the complainant suffered from fever and as such was taken to Veterinary Hospital, Longowal, District Sangrur but unfortunately cow died on 10.07.2021 due to fever, where  post-mortem of cow was also conducted on the same day and report to this effect was given on 12.07.2021, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-5.  Thereafter the complainant sent the request through registered post on 13.7.2021 to the OPs for release of the claim amount, but the OPs repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground of late submission of the claim with the OPs.

6.             On the other hand, the insurance of the cow is not denied by the OPs and even  it is admitted that the complainant has intimated the claim after 3 days i.e. on 13.7.2021 and as per the terms and conditions of the policy, in the event of death of the insured animal, insured shall give company an opportunity of inspecting the carcass until at least the expiration of 24 hours after such notice shall have given to the company, however, no such intimation was given to the OPs after the death of cattle. As such it is contended by the learned counsel for the OPs that the claim of the complainant was rightly closed as ‘No Claim’ vide letter dated 19.8.2021, Ex.OP/7.

7.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the only question which arises for determination before us is whether the OPs have rightly closed the claim of the complainant as “No Claim” by the OPs or not.   It is on record that the cow in question died on 10.07.2021 and the complainant got performed the post-mortem on the dead body of the cow on the same day,  which is evident from the coy of post-mortem report dated 12.7.2021, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-5, which is duly signed by the Veterinary Officer, CVH, Longowal (Sangrur). A bare perusal of the post-mortem report also reveals that this dead cow also carries the same tag number 19C (19782) as allotted to the insured cow by the OPs at the time of insurance, which is evident from the copy of insurance policy Ex.OP/2, meaning thereby the  particulars of the tag number also matches with the dead and insured cow.  It is no doubt true that the complainant gave the intimation to the OPs on 13.7.2021, whereas the cow in question died on 10.7.2021, but we may mention that the post-mortem on the dead body of the cow was performed immediately on the same date i.e. 10.7.2021 by the Veterinary Officer, CVH, Longowal (Sangrur) which is evident from the report dated 12.7.2021.  We find nothing wrong in the post-mortem report and even the tag number of the dead animal is the same. As such, we are unable to throw the complaint case of the complainant on this ground of late submission of the intimation to the OPs, whereas the other facts are matching  and supporting with the dead animal.  In the circumstances, we find it to be a fit case which deserves to be allowed in favour of the complainant.   

8.             The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.

9.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OPs to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.40,000/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 20.12.2021 till realisation. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own cost. This order be complied with within a period of sixty days of receipt of copy of this order.

10.            The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

11.            Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance. 

                        Pronounced.

 

                        July 30, 2024.

 

           (Kanwaljeet Singh)  (Sarita Garg) (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

                  Member               Member                   President