DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  443

                                                Instituted on:    06.07.2016

                                                Decided on:       27.01.2017

Hardeep Singh son of Natha Singh, resident of Qila Hakima, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     The Dhuri Primary Co-operative Agri. Development Bank Ltd. Dhuri, Branch Office Dhuri, District Sangrur through its Manager.

2.     United India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office, Patiala Road, Nabha, District Patiala.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Shri Ashi Goyal, Adv.

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

For OP No.2             :       Shri Ashish Garg, Adv.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Hardeep Singh, 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 loan of Rs.12,60,000/- for purchase of cows and construction of cattle shed under which the complainant was entitled to a subsidy of Rs.2.00 Lacs, but the OP number 1 disbursed the total loan of Rs.9,60,000/-. 

2.             Further case of the complainant is that the OP number 1 got insured 10 cows of the complainant vide separate cover note number 222761 for the period from 13.9.2013 in respect of six cows and cover note number 2227831 for four cows for the period from 25.3.2014 to 24.3.2015.  It is further averred that the OP number 2 issued the cover notes without affixing tags to the insured cows nor the copy of cover note was provided to the complainant.  Further case of the complainant is that four cows of the complainant died from May, 2014 to February, 2015 and as such the complainant filed the claim with the OP number 1, who forwarded the same to OP number 2, but the OP number 2 did not respond to the claim of the complainant on the ground that the OP number 2 issued cover not for buffaloes and not cows. 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 the insurance claim amount of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

3.             In reply filed by the OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the Ops into unwanted litigation, that the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint and that the complaint is false and frivolous one.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had availed a loan of Rs.9,50,000/- for purchase of buffaloes and for construction of shed.  The amount of Rs.2,70,000/- was disbursed to the complainant on 7.8.2013 and an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- was disbursed to the complainant on 26.8.2013.  However, it is stated that there was no scheme for subsidy as mentioned in the complaint.   Further it is denied that the OP number 1 had got insured 10 cows vide two separate cover notes. However, the above mentioned cover notes were issued in respect of 10 buffaloes respectively. Moreover, the complainant himself given an affidavit dated 10.09.2013 for the issuance of loan for the purchase of buffaloes. It is denied that the OP number 2 issued cover notes without affixing tags to the insured animals.   It is stated further that the loan was obtained for purchase of buffalos and insurance was also done of the buffaloes, so the question of any cows does not arise at all.   The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

4.             In reply filed by OP number 2., it has been admitted that at the request of P.A.D.B. Bank, the OP number 2 insured six buffalos belonging to the complainant for the period from 13.09.2013 to 12.09.2014 and tags number 44161 to 44166 were issued. Thereafter the OP insured four buffaloes for the period from 25.3.23016 to 24.3.2015 bearing tags number 46138 to 46141.   It is further stated that after receipt of intimation from the complainant regarding death of one buffalo, the OP appointed Dr. Ram Kumar for investigation. The said doctor personally examined the carcass of the deceased buffalo on 27.8.2014 in the presence of the complainant, who submitted his report dated 9.10.2014, but the insured did not submit the claim papers and post-mortem report, therefore the claim was found not payable.  After receipt of the report, the OP sent a letter dated 14.10.2014 to the insured for submitting claim papers, Sarpanch certificate, valuation certificate, post-mortem report, statement of witnesses etc., but when no response was received, the claim was closed as no claim and informed the complainant vide letter dated 24.12.2014. However, it has been denied that 10 cows were insured by OP number 2.  When the complainant did not got insured the cows, the providing of tags to the cows does not arise at all. Further it is stated that the complainant even did not give any intimation regarding death of the four cows.  Thus, the OP has prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special costs.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of certificate, Ex.C-2 copy of application dated 12.7.2013, Ex.C-3 copy of self declaration, Ex.C-4 copy of application dated 15.7.2013, Ex.C-5 copy of ledger, Ex.C-6 copy of voucher, Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-8 copies of insurance policy, Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-14 copies of photographs, Ex.C-15 copy of letter dated 09.12.2014, Ex.C-16 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-17 to Ex.C-19 copies of postal receipt and legal notice and Ex.C-20 affidavit, Ex.C-21 copy of letter, Ex.C-22 copy of application form, Ex.C-23 approval letter, Ex.C-24 copy of order, Ex.C-25 and Ex.C-26 copy of application form and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit, Ex.Op1/2 copy of loan case approval, Ex.Op1/3 copy of order dated 18.7.2013, Ex.OP1/4 copy of application, Ex.OP1/5 copy of affidavit, Ex.OP1/6 copy of insurance cover note, Ex.OP1/7 copy of health certificate, Ex.OP1/8 copy of insurance cover note, Ex.OP1/9 copy of health certificate and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has tendered Ex.Op2/1 copy of cover note, Ex.OP2/2 copy of health certificate, Ex.Op2/3 copy of cover note, Ex.OP2/4 copy of policy, Ex.OP2/5 copy of spot visit dated 27.3.2014 by Dr. Ram Kumar, Ex.OP2/6 copy of investigation report, Ex.OP2/7 to Ex.OP2/9 copies of photographs, Ex.OP2/10 copy of letter dated 14.10.2014, Ex.OP2/11 copy of letter dated 25.11.2014, Ex.Op2/12 copy of letter dated 5.12.2014, Ex.Op2/13 copy of letter dated 9.12.2014, Ex.OP2/14 copy of letter dated 24.12.2014, Ex.OP2/15 affidavit, and Ex.Op2/16 affidavit of Dr. Ram Kumar and closed evidence.

6.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

7.             In the present case, the complainant is aggrieved on non settlement/non payment of the insurance claim of the four dead cows which died during the period from May, 2014 to February, 2015 and the complainant filed the claim with the Op number 1, who forwarded the same to the OP number 2.  But, we may mention that the complaint of the complainant is so vague at the very outset as in the complaint it is not even mentioned that on what date the four cows died and on what occasion he submitted/lodged the claim and what were the documents.  Further case of the complainant is that though he approached the Ops so many times for settlement of the claim of the dead cows, but the OPs repudiated the same on the ground that the cows in question was never insured with the OP number 2.  It is also contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that though the OP number 2 at the time of issuing the policy wrongly mentioned the buffalos instead of the cows, as such, the claim has been wrongly repudiated by the OP number 2.   On the other hand, the stand of the Op number 2 is that the complainant is not a consumer of the OP number 2, as he never got insured the cows in question from the OP number 2, as such, it is contended vehemently that the claim has rightly been repudiated as the complainant has not got insured the cows.

8.             Now, the only question which arises for determination before us is whether the alleged dead cows in question were insured with the OP number 2 or not and that whether the complainant is entitled to get the claim or not.

9.             Ex.C-7 and Ex.C-8 are the copies of the cover notes showing the insurance of six plus four buffalos and further Ex.OP1/7 and Ex.OP1/9 are the copies of health certificates issued by Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma for the six buffaloes and four buffaloes having different breeds such murrah, nili, murrah graded and mixed breed having the cost of Rs.50,000/- each.

10.           The complainant has also contended further that the OP number 1 has wrongly got insured the buffaloes instead of 10 cows, but we are unable to go with such a contention of the learned counsel for the complainant, more so when the OP number 1 has produced Ex.Op1/7 and Ex.OP1/9, which are health certificates issued by Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma before the insurance of the ten buffaloes.  All this shows that the opposite party number 2 insured only the buffaloes and not the cows,  as such, the question for a direction to the insurance company for payment of the insurance claim on account of the dead cows does not arise at all.  Moreover, we may mention that the complainant has not produced even a single document on record to show that where, when and how the cows died and whether the post-mortem on the dead cows were conducted.  We feel that the complainant has filed a very vague and false complaint, which lacks all the evidence required to get the claim.  The complainant has got insured the buffaloes and demanding the claim for four dead cows claiming an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, whereas each animal is insured for Rs.50,000/-, meaning thereby the complainant has not filed the complaint with open eyes and has filed a vague and false complaint. 

11.           It is worth mentioning here that the complainant also lodged a claim with the OP number 2 for a dead buffalo having tag number 46138 as is evident from the copy of investigation report of Dr. Ram Kumar Ex.OP2/5, but the same claim was repudiated on the ground that the complainant failed to submit the documents of the dead cow in question.  But, the complainant has concealed this fact of lodging of the claim with the OP number 2 regarding death of the buffalo having ear tag number UII/46138. Thus, the complainant has concealed the material information.  As such, we are again of the considered opinion that the person who does not come to the Forum with clean hands is not entitled to get any claim.    Further to support his contention that his four cows had died, the complainant has not even produced the copy of post-mortem report of the dead cows on record. There is no explanation from the complainant why he withheld the same, if the cows had actually died and the post-mortem had been got conducted.  In the circumstances, we feel that the complainant has failed to prove his case by producing cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record.

12.           In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint. 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.

                January 27, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member