Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/17/25

Sh. Amrinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Kamal Singh

27 Nov 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. :  25 of 09.05.2017                                      Date of decision                    :      27.11.2017

 

Amarinder Singh, son of Sh. Manjit Singh, resident of Village Maddo Majra, PO Lodhi Majra, Tehsil & District Rupnagar  

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Nangal Chowk, Rupnagar, through its Branch Manager

2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Branch Mehatpur, Tehsil & District Una (HP) through its Branch Manager.                                                                                                       ....Opposite Parties

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                        SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh.Kamal Saini, Advocate, counsel for complainant 

Sh. Amit Gupta, Adv. counsel for O.PS. No.1 & 2

 

ORDER

                                  MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

Sh. Amarinder Singh through his counsel has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.Ps.’) praying for the following reliefs:-

i)       To pay the balance claim amount of Rs.13,500/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from 23.11.2013 and to pay Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of death of cow 

ii)      To pay Rs.2,00,000/-  as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.

iii)     To pay Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

2.           In brief, the case of the complainant is that after doing graduation, he took training from the Dairy Vikas Department, Punjab, for the period from 23.5.2011 to 6.6.2011, for the purpose of opening a dairy farm to earn his livelihood. He further took training from the authorized service center of Dairy Vikas Department, Punjab situated, at Village Chatamali, District Ropar, for the period from 16.11.2015 to 25.12.2015. After taking training, he applied for Loan for Dairy Farming, from the Chandigarh Primary Co-operative Agriculture Development Bank Ltd., Ropar. The said bank disbursed the Loan amount of Rs. 15,00,000/-. He started doing the Dairy Farming under the name and style Hundal Dairy Farming at Village Maddo Majra, Tehsil and District Rupnagar. He purchased 15 Cows and got them insured on 31.10.2012 from the O.Ps, for sum assured of Rs.50,000/- per Cow. They issued Cover note bearing No. 361653 for the period from 01.11.2012 to 31.10.2015. Out of the total fifteen insured Cows, one cow bearing tag No. 7593705, microchip No. 981020007593705 died on 23.11.2013 and the second cow bearing tag No. 7594699, microchip No. 981020007594699, died on 05.01.2015. The OPs paid Rs.37,500/- for the cow bearing Tag No. 7593705, microchip No. 981020007593705, died on 23.11.2013, instead of the sum assured of Rs.50,000/-. However, O.Ps. have not paid any claim amount for the cow bearing tag No. 7594699, microchip No. 981020007594699, died on 05.01.2015.  Hence, this complaint.

 

3.                On being put to the notice, the O.Ps. No.1 & 2 has filed written version taking preliminary objections; that the claim amount of Rs.37,500/- had been paid to the complainant for the cow having microchip No. 981020007593705,  died on 23.11.2013. The cause of action accrued to the complainant in the year 2013, whereas, he has filed the present complaint in the year 2017. Thus, it is barred by limitation. On merits, it is stated that the claim amount of Rs.37,500/- for the cow who died on 05.01.2015, having microchip No. 981020007594699,was sent through NEFT to PNB Bank on 07.10.2015 to credit the said amount into the A/c of Sh. Amrinder Singh. But the same could not be credited because of wrong account number. A letter dated 27.10.2015 was written to the complainant to provide the correct account number, so that the claim amount may be deposited. In the reply dated 27.10.2016 to the Legal notice dated 17.10.2016, it was categorically stated that the claim amount could not be paid because the complainant failed to give the correct account number, as such, they cannot said to be deficient in providing services. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof, with cost.

4.                On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and closed the evidence  The learned counsel for the O.Ps. No.1 & 2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. S.P. Sharma, Senior DM Ex.OP1 along with documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP32 and closed the evidence . 

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

6.                          The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the O.Ps. paid the claim amount to the tune of Rs.37,500/- instead of the assured amount of Rs.50,000/- for the cow having microchip No.981020007593705, died on 23.11.2013. But O.Ps had not paid any claim amount for the cow having microchip No. 981020007594699, died on 05.01.2015. The learned counsel for the O.Ps has submitted that an amount of Rs.37,500/- was paid vide voucher No.131000156 on 29.5.2013. If the complainant was not satisfied with the claim amount paid by the OPs for the dead cow having microchip No. 981020007593705, then as per Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, he could have filed the complaint within a period of two years from the date of receipt of the payment voucher 30.5.2013, whereas, the present compliant has been filed on 09.5.2017 approximately after a delay of two years. Therefore, the complaint filed with regard to the cow having microchip No. 981020007593705, died on 23.11.2013, is liable to be dismissed being barred by limitation. We find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the O.Ps. because if the complainant was not satisfied with the claim amount paid by the O.Ps. for the cow who died on 23.11.2013 then as per section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, he could have filed the complaint within the period of two years from the date of receipt of the payment voucher i.e. 29.5.2013 and not at this belated stage.  So far as the payment of the claim amount for the cow having microchip No. 981020007594699, died on 05.01.2015, is concerned. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that as per insurance policy, complainant was entitled to get the insured amount of Rs.50,000/-, but the O.Ps. did not pay him any amount. The learned counsel for the OPs has submitted that the claim amount of Rs.37,500/- was sent through NEFT to PNB Bank on 07.10.2015 to credit into the  A/c of Sh. Amrinder Singh. But, the said amount could not be credited because of wrong Account Number. For the sake of arguments, if we believe the contention of the learned counsel for the OPs that the claim amount could not be credited because of wrong account number, even then this fact cannot be ignored that the OPs could have sent the claim amount to the complainant through cheque/DD. From the Cover note Ex-C1, veterinary surgeon’s certificate Ex-C2 and Cattle insurance policy Ex-OP2, it is evident that each cow was insured for a sum of Rs.50,000/- . From the investigation report Ex-OP 15 it is apparent that the said investigator had opined that the claim of the complainant is genuine and should be paid as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It may be stated here that once the cow in question was insured for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- then as per which term or condition of the policy, the O.Ps. have assessed the claim to the tune of Rs.37,500/-. No such term and condition has been brought to the knowledge of this Forum by the learned counsel for the OPs. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get the claim amount of Rs. 50,000/- for the cow having microchip No. 981020007594699, died on 05.01.2015. He is also entitled to get compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him along with litigation expenses.

7.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we partly allow the complaint and direct the O.Ps. in the following manner:-

1. To pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for the cow having microchip No.+981020007594699, died on 05.01.2015 along with interest @ 7% per annum w.e.f. 09.05.2017 i.e. date of filing of the present complaint till its realization

              2. To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and        physical harassment suffered by the complainant.

              3.  To pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.

                   The O.Ps. are further directed to comply with the said order within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 

8.           The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.

 

                   ANNOUNCED                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

                   Dated .27.11.2017                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                    (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                                       MEMBER