Punjab

Sangrur

CC/373/2015

Karamjit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Dhuri Primary Co-op.Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Ramit Pathak

03 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  373

                                                Instituted on:    01.06.2015

                                                Decided on:       03.03.2016

 

 

 

Karamjit Kaur wife of Tara Singh, resident of Near Mallu Majra Road, Village Daulatpur, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             The Dhuri Primary Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Limited, Dhuri, District Sangrur through its Manager.

2.             The United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Nabha, through its Branch Manager, District Patiala.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Ramit Pathak, Adv.

For OP No. 1            :               Shri Rajiv Singla, Adv.

For OP No.2             :               Shri M.S.Ratol, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Smt. Karamjit Kaur, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OP number 1 by taking a dairy loan of Rs.4,00,000/- in the year 2013 for purchase of three cows and one buffalo  and the same were got insured by paying the requisite premium of Rs.6112/- to OP number 1 vide receipt dated 23.8.2013. It is further stated that no policy document or any tags were ever issued to the complainant.  Further case of the complainant is that unfortunately, the buffalo of the complainant died suddenly on 2.7.2014, as such the complainant informed the OP number 1 about the same.  It is further stated that due to inadvertence, the OP number 1 issued the policy in question in the name of Karamjit Singh son of Tara Singh.  It is further stated that on verifying the facts from the OP number 1, the complainant found that the bank got insured four buffalos and also submitted the health certificate of four buffalos. It has been further stated that the complainant visited the office of OP number 1 for getting the claim amount, but on the other hand, he OP number 2 closed the file of the complainant as 'no claim'.  It is further averred that the buffalo in question was insured for Rs.40,000/-. It has been stated that the Op has repudiated the claim of the complainant wrongly, and as such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay o the complainant an amount of Rs.40,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the OP into uncalled litigation, that the complainant has no got no locus standi to file the present complaint and that the complaint is false and frivolous.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant took dairy loan of Rs.4,00,000/- in the year 2013 from OP number 1, but it has been denied that the loan was for three cows and one buffalo, however, it has been admitted that the complainant paid a premium of Rs.6112/- for insurance of the buffaloes, as the loan was taken only for purchase of buffaloes.  It is further stated that the first instalment of Rs.2,40,000/- was released on 7.5.2013 for purchase of six buffalos and second and final instalment of Rs.1,60,000/- was released to the complainant on 24.8.2013 for purchase of four buffalos.  The complainant herself got the health verification of the buffalos from Dr. Dharam Pal Sharma and submitted the health certificate to the OP, which shows that the health certificate was wrongly issued in the name of Karamjit Singh instead of Karamjit Kaur.  The other allegations in the complaint have been denied by OP number 1.

 

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has wrongly frivolously and unnecessarily dragged the OP in the present case, that the complainant is neither a consumer of the OP as the policy is not in the name of the complainant and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands.  On merits, it has been totally denied that the complainant took a loan for purchase of three cows and one buffalo and the same was got insured with the OP number 2. It has been further stated that the facts stated by the complainant regarding death of the buffalo on 2.7.2014 and its intimation to OP number 1 has been denied, as no such communication and intimation as stated has taken place from the complainant and OP number 1 with the OP number 2.  It is further stated that after proper inquiry and investigation, the OP number 2 closed the file of the complainant as 'no claim' on the basis of enquiry report of the investigator.  However, it is stated that the claim has been rightly repudiated by the OP.

 

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 affidavits, Ex.C-3 copy of pass book, Ex.C-4 copy of cover note, Ex.C-5 copy of health certificate, Ex.C-6 copy of valuation certificate, Ex.C-7 copy of PMR, Ex.C-9 copy of repudiation letter and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced  Ex.OP2/1 affidavit, Ex.OP2/2 copy of health certificate, Ex.OP2/3 copy of insurance policy, Ex.OP2/4 copy of policy, Ex.OP2/5 copy of letter, Ex.OP2/6 copy of letter, Ex.OP2/7 and Ex.OP2/8 copies of statements, Ex.OP2/9 to Ex.OP2/12 copies of photographs, Ex.Op2/13 copy of letter, Ex.OP2/14 copy of postal receipt, Ex.Op2/15 copy of letter dated 24.9.2014, Ex.Op2/16 copy of letter, Ex.OP2/17 affidavit of Amrik Singh and closed evidence.

 

 

 

5.             In the present case, the complainant has alleged in the complaint that the complainant took a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from OP number 1 for purchase of three cows and one buffalo and accordingly the same were got insured from OP number 1, but on the other side, the complainant has produced on record Ex.C-4 alleging the cover note issued by the Ops for insurance of the four animals, but a bare perusal of it shows that the cover note is issued for four buffalos as per the health certificate Ex.C-5.  Moreover, the complainant has not produced on record any copy of cover note in her name, whereas the copies of cover notes produced by the complainant are in the name of one Karamjeet Singh and not Karamjit Kaur.   It seems that this cover note does not belong to the complainant.    Again Ex.OP2/4 is the copy of insurance policy, which is also in the name of Karamjeet Singh.  Ex.OP2/5 is the copy of intimation dated 2.7.2013 sent to the OP number 2 is also signed by Karamjeet Singh. We have also perused the copy of investigation report of Shri Amrik Singh, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that in the beginning the complainant tried to deceive the company by producing a dummy person, who is not actual owner of the dead buffalo and that no ear tag was found in any of the ear nor it has been surrendered to him while submitting the claim form.  On the other hand, the complainant is silent about the non production of the ear tag of the dead animal.   Further we have also perused the copy of statement of Shri Karamjit Singh, Ex.OP2/7, which has been duly signed by him (Karamjeet Singh) on 2.7.2014, wherein it has been stated by him that his buffalo has died on 2.7.2014 in the shed at 6.00 AM, whereby he has stated that he has filed a genuine claim.  But, again it is worth mentioning here that the complaint has been filed by one Karamjeet Kaur and not by Karamjeet Singh.  Moreover, we may mention here that the complainant has not produced on record any documentary evidence to show that if her name was wrongly mentioned in the policy, then he ever approached the OP number 1 as well as OP number 2 for correction of her name in the policy.  Under the circumstances, we feel that the complainant filed the complaint against the OPs in view of the cover note, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-4 clearly shows that the same is in the name of Karamjeet Singh for insurance of four buffalos and not for three cows and one buffalo.  As such, we feel that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case, rather the complainant has contradictory stand in the complaint as well as in the affidavit and evidence produced on the record.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint has no case made out for any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

 

 

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                March 3, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member