Punjab

Sangrur

CC/280/2015

Hakam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Malerkotla Primary Co-op Agriculture Development Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Manpreet Singh

01 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    280

                                                Instituted on:      05.05.2015

                                                Decided on:       01.12.2015

 

Hakam Singh son of S. Dalbara Singh, resident of Village Alipur, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur. Punjab.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.     The Manager, The Malerkotla Primary Coop. Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

2.     The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Malerkotla, through its Branch Manager, District Sangrur.

3.     The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Nabha through its Branch Manager, District Patiala.

4.     The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Head Office, Oriental House, A25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110 002 through its Chief Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

 

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Manpreet Singh, Adv.

For OP No.1              :       Shri Sumir Fatta, Adv.

For OP No.2 to 4       :       Shri Ashish Kumar, Adv.

 

 

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Hakam 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 obtained the services of the OPs by getting insured his three cows from OPs number 2 to 4 through OP number 1 for the period from 22.8.2014 to 21.8.2015 vide cover note number 883761 dated 22.8.2014 and accordingly the OPs inserted tag number 211, 212 and 213 on the insured cows. It is further averred that on 13.9.2014 one of the insured cow bearing tag number 211 died due to illness and accordingly information of the same was given to OPs number 2 and 3 and after completion of the formalities, the complainant submitted all the documents to the Ops for getting the claim of the dead cow having tag number 211, but the OPs repudiated the claim of the complainant, which is said to be wrong and illegal. 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 an amount of Rs.50,000/- being the claim amount along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of death of the cow till realisation. Further the complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.20,000/- on account of mental torture, agony and harassment and an amount of Rs.5500/- on account of  litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the ground that the complaint if false and that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the cows in question were insured with the OPs.  However, it is stated that the claim is payable by the insurer i.e. OPs number 2 to 4 and the OP number 1 has nothing to do with the claim and any deficiency in service on the part of OP number 1 has been denied.

 

3.             In reply filed by the OPs number 2 to 4, it is admitted that the complainant got insured his cows from the OPs and that the tags bearing number 211 to 213 were inserted and each of the cow was insured for Rs.50,000/-.   It is further admitted that the complainant informed the OPs about the death of the cow bearing tag number 211 and the OPs immediately appointed Shri B.L. Garg, surveyor, assessor and investigator for investigation of the claim, who submitted his report dated 16.9.2014. It is has been observed in the report that there was no tag in the ear of the deceased cow and no tag hole was visible in the ear of the deceased cow and the surveyor also observed that the insured inserted the tag near the ear of the cow after the death of the cow. It is further stated that as regards live cows bearing tag number 212 and 213, the tags were already inserted in their ears. It is stated further that the story made up by the complainant that at the time of pulling the infirm cow from the ear, its tag came out cannot be believed. It is stated that the dead cow was not insured one and as such, it is stated that the claim has been rightly repudiated by the OPs. Any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of insurance cover note, Ex.C-2 copy of animal health certificate, Ex.C-3 copy of PMR, Ex.C-4 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-7 copies of receipts, Ex.C-8 copy of letter dated 28.1.2005, Ex.C-9 copy of claim form, Ex.C-10 copy of letter dated 8.12.2014, Ex.C-11 copy of statement of Zimmi Singh, Ex.C-12 and Ex.C-13 affidavits and closed evidence.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OPs number 2 to 4 has produced Ex.OP2to4/1 copy of policy, Ex.OP2to4/2 copy of intimation, Ex.OP2to4/3 copy of survey report, Ex.OP2to4/4 to Ex.OP2to4/18 copies of photographs, Ex.OP2to4/19 copy of no claim letter, Ex.OP2to4/20 affidavit of surveyor, Ex.OP2to4/21 affidavit of  Shri N.K.Taneja and closed evidence.

 

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

 

6.             It is an admitted fact of the parties that the complainant got insured his three cows from the OPs number 2 to 4 vide cover note number 883761 dated 22.8.2014 for Rs.50,000/- each and accordingly tags bearing number 211,212 and 213 were inserted in the ear of the cows.  The present case of the complainant is that the cow in question bearing tag number 211 died on 13.9.2014, of which information was given to the OPs and accordingly the OPs deputed surveyor Shri B.L. Garg for investigation of the claim.  But, the OPs repudiated the claim of the complainant after receiving the survey report on the ground that the dead cow was not insured one as there was no ear tag in the dead cow nor there was any hole visible near the ear of the deceased cow, as such the Ops have rightly and legally repudiated the claim of the complainant.  We have also perused the copy of spot verification report of the surveyor Shri B.L.Goyal, which is on record as Ex.OP2to4/3, which clearly shows that the tag was not in the ear of the dead cow when the insurance surveyor visited the spot. To support this version in the report of the surveyor, the affidavit of Shri B.L. Goyal, surveyor is also on record saying that no tag hole was visible in the ear of the dead cow and the insured put the tag number 211of dead cow near its ear.  Further to support the allegations of the OPs number 2 to 4, there is on record the affidavit of Shri N.K.Taneja, Ex.OP2to4/21 on record.    On the other hand, the complainant has not produced iota of evidence to support his contention that the dead cow was insured one nor there is any clarification that why the tag number 211 was missing from the ear of the cow.  In the circumstances of the case, we find that the complainant has miserably failed to establish on record that the dead cow was insured one and was having tag number 211.  It is worth mentioning here that since the dead cow not bearing tag number 211, we feel that the complainant is not entitled to get any claim and the OPs have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 14.10.2014, a copy of which on record is Ex.OP2 to 4/19.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, 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.

                December 1, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member