Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/555/2013

Sanjiv Kumar S/o Som Nath 59 Years - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,Syndicate Bank - Opp.Party(s)

R.P.Saini

02 Nov 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                             Complaint No. 555 of 2013.

                                                                                             Date of institution: 05.08.2013

                                                                                             Date of decision:  02.11.2016.

Sanjeev Kumar aged 39 years son of Shri Som Nath resident of village Bakana, Tehsil Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. The Manager, Syndicate Bank, Branch Bakana, Tehsil Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar.
2. United India Insurance Co. Branch Near Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager/ Executive Officer.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

                                                                                                                                                                      …Respondents

BEFORE:           SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                           SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER

 

Present: Sh. R.P. Saini, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              Sh. P.N.Ahuja, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.1.

              Sh. V.P.S. Trehan, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.2.       

 

ORDER

 

1.                       Complainant Sanjeev Kumar has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the present case, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant had purchased cows and buffalos after taking loan from respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred as Op No.1 Bank) and got the same insured with respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred as OP No.2 Insurance Company) vide policy bearing No. 110101/47/11/01/00000137 valid from 4.10.2011 to 03.10.2014. The Veterinary Doctor checked the purchased and insured animals of the complainant and fixed the ear tags in the ear of the animals’ alongwith other descriptions of animals in the presence of OP No2 Insurance Company. After passage of some time, complainant informed to Op No.1 through letter that some ear tags of animals have been lost and after that Op No.1 informed the Op No.2 to re-fix the ear tag in the hole of the ear of the animas but the Op No.2 had not re-fixed the ear tag. Instead of re-fixing the ear tags in the ear of the animals, the OP No.2 directed the complainant to fix/re-fix the ear tags in the ears of animals and report about it to the concerned authority, whereas this function was not of the complainant. In this way, Op No.2 did not perform his duty. It has been further mentioned that one cow out of insured animals had died and the claim of the same was given to the complainant by Op No.2 Insurance Company. However, the another cow, colour black and white having patches on forehead, hindfeet, HR cross died and aged about 6 years died on 18.07.2012. This died cow was also insured for a sum of Rs. 35000/- with Op No.2 Insurance Company and was having Tag No. UII/2223. Before its death information regarding lost of ear tag was given to the OP Insurance Company. After that postmortem was also done by the Veterinary Doctor on 18.07.2012 and the complainant completed all the formalities and lodged the claim with the OP Insurance Company but the Op Insurance Company has not released the claim amount of Rs. 35,000/- to the complainant despite so many requests. The complainant also got issued a legal notice dated 03.06.2013 but all in vain. Lastly, prayed for directing the OP Insurance Company to pay the claim amount of Rs. 35,000/- as cost price of the dead cow alongwith interest therein and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice OPs appeared and filed its written statement separately. OP No.1 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; complaint is not maintainable; complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and on merit all the contents of the complaint were denied being matter of record, however, it has been admitted to the extent that ear tags of some animals had fallen and on complaint by the complainant, the OP No. 1 Bank had requested the OP No.2 Insurance Company to re-tag the missing ear tag of the insured animals. In this regard, In this regard letter dated 02.11.2011 and 03.08.2012 (Annex. R-1/1 and Annex. R1/2) were sent to Op No.2. Further, it has also been admitted that a legal notice was received which was duly replied on dated 13.06.2013, copy of the same is Annexure R1/3. Rest contents of the complaint were denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint qua OP No.1 Bank.

4.                     OP No.2 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint of the complainant is totally false and fabricated. The alleged died cow bearing tag No. UII/2223, which was insured for Rs. 35000/- vide insurance policy bearing No. 110101/47/11/01/00000137 valid from 04.10.2011 to 03.10.2014, was not having any ear tag at the time of inspection by the investigator, hence the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated by the OP Insurance Company. It has been further mentioned that it was observed by the investigator during the investigation that 8 cows and 5 buffalos were present in the farmhouse of the complainant, out of which 5 were tagged and rest tags were fallen. As per the statement of insured three (3) animals have already been sold by him and tag of the dead cow was missing and on merit controverted the plea taken by complainant and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint as there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP Insurance Company as the alleged dead cow was not having any ear tag at the time of inspection made by the investigator and the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated on the ground that No Tag No Claim.

5.                     In support of his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CX and documents such as Photo copy of treatment chart as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of Postmortem report as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of Certificate issued by Sydicate Bank as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of Claim Form as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of health certificate as Annexure C-5, Photo copy of letter dated 31.08.2012 as Annexure C-6, Photo copy of legal notice as Annexure C-7, Photo copy of postal receipt as Annexure C-8, Photo copy of letter dated 01.11.2011 as Annexure C-9, Photo copy of reply of legal notice as Annexure C-10, Photo copy of acknowledgement as Annexure C-11, Photo copy of letter dated 24.08.2012 as Annexure C-12, Photo copy of Veterinary Certificate as Annexure C-13 and closed his evidence.

6.                     On the other hand, counsel for OP No.1 tendered not evidence affidavit of Iqbal Singh, Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank as Annexure RW1/A and documents such as Photo copy of letter dated 02.11.2011 as Annexure R.1/1, Photo copy of letter dated 03.08.2012 as Annexure R1/2, Photo copy of legal notice dated 03.06.2013 as Annexure R1/3, Photo copy of reply of legal notice as Annexure R1/4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1.

7.                     Counsel for Op No.2 tendered into evidence legal notice dated 03.06.2013 as Annexure R2/1 and Surveyor report as Annexure R2/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

8                             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very carefully and minutely.

9.                     The only plea of the OP Insurance Company is that the alleged died cow was not having any ear tag in the ear at the time of investigation by the investigator. Learned counsel for the OPs draw our attention towards the copy of postmortem report (Annexure C-2) wherein it has also been mentioned that no tag was present in the ear and only tag hole was present and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

10.                   On the other hand, counsel for the complainant argued at length that genuine claim of the complainant has been wrongly rejected by the Op Insurance Company.  Learned counsel for the complainant referred the letter dated 31.08.2012 (Annexure C-6) written by the Op No.2 Insurance Company to OpNo.2 Syndicate Bank in which the Op No.2 Insurance Company has requested to the OPNo.1 to convey the complainant Sanjeev Kumar to collect the ear tags from the office of Op No.2 and get it re-tag from the veterinary doctor and intimate to Op No.2. Learned counsel for the complainant also draw our attention towards the letter dated 02.11.2011 (Annexure C-9) issued by Op No.1 Bank to Op No.2 Insurance Company in which it has been mentioned that complainant has informed that the tags of the cattle have fallen and are missing and was requested to re-tag the cattle to avoid the complications with Insurance claim, if any, in future. Lastly, counsel for the complainant prayed for acceptance of complaint.

11.                   After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that the OP Insurance Company has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant as the OP Insurance Company has totally failed to place on file any terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Even, from the perusal of copy of postmortem report (Annexure C-2), it is duly evident that one cow of the complainant Sanjeev Kumar had died on 18.07.2012 and the Veterinary Surgeon has specifically mentioned in his postmortem report that no tag was present but there was tag hole in the ear of the dead cow. From the perusal of letter dated 01.11.2011, issued by Op No.1 Bank to Op No.2 Insurance Company, it is duly evident that some ear tags were fallen and were missing and the Op Insurance Company was requested to retag the same. This fact has also been mentioned in the letter dated 31.08.2012 (Annexure C-6) vide which the OP Insurance Company has requested to Op No.1 Bank to inform the complainant to collect the tags and get the same re-tagged. From these letters, it is clear that some tags were missing. Further, from the perusal of investigation report Annexure R2/2 it reveals that this report is related to the cow having tag No. UII-1816 not for cow bearing tag No. UII/2223. The Ops Insurance Company has not placed on file any affidavit of the investigator to prove their stands. As the OP Insurance Company has failed to file any terms and conditions of the insurance policy and also failed to file any evidence or proper investigation report in respect of died cow bearing the tag No. UII/2223, hence, we have no option except to partly allow the complaint of complainant.

12                    Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the Op No.2 Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 35,000/- as insured amount of dead cow within a period of 30 days failing which complainant shall be entitled to recovery the interest at the rate of 7% per annum for the defaulting period. Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 02.11.2016.

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                         PRESIDENT

 

                    (S.C.SHARMA)

                           MEMBER