DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.92 of 2017

                                                Date of institution:  08.02.2017                                             Date of decision   :  05.11.2019

Kulwinder Kaur wife of Shri Rajinder Singh, resident of village Hassanpur, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

…….Complainant

Versus

1.     The New India Assurance Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office Ropar through its Manager.

2.     The New India Assurance Insurance Co. Ltd. Regional Office Non -Motor Claim Service Hub, SCO 36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its Manager.

                                                        ……..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member

Present:     None for complainant.

Shri Sukaam Gupta, counsel for OPs.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

                Complainant purchased five cows through Punjab National Bank Kharuan Tehsil Kharar, for earning livelihood. These cows were got insured with OPs. Authorised veterinary doctor of OP No.1 visited cow farm of complainant and inspected all milch animals and thereafter prepared health certificates. It was after submission of these certificates that policy with validity from 28.08.2014 to 27.08.2017 was issued by OPs. One insured cow bearing micro chip number 900108001498624 expired on 31.10.2016 at 11.00 A.M after remaining sick from 26.10.2016 to 30.10.2016. That cow was treated by local qualified veterinary doctor of the area. After death of the cow, complainant informed OP No.2, the dealing office at once.  Dr. YPC Mehta was appointed as investigator, who after visiting the cow farm of the complainant, verified and indentified the dead cow and removed above numbered microchip. All formalities were completed and documents were collected for settlement of claim. Veterinary doctor after inspecting the dead cow conducted post mortem and informed complainant as if the cow died due to some disease. All cows of the complainant were insured. Claim of the complainant regarding dead cow not settled on one pretext or the other and even after writing of letter dated 04.01.2017 to OP No.2. By claiming deficiency in service on the part of OPs, this complaint filed for seeking Rs.60,000/- as insured amount of dead cow. Interest @ 12% per annum from the date of death of cow i.e. 31.10.2016 also claimed along with compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs. 20,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/-.

2.             In joint reply submitted by the OPs it is claimed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, more so when insured sum of Rs.60,000/- has already been paid. Admittedly after receipt of intimation regarding death of cow, Dr.YPC Mehta was appointed as investigator, who submitted report with the OPs on 02.11.2016. Claim of complainant after receipt of report of investigator was approved for a sum of Rs.60,000/- and said amount was credited to the account of complainant on 15.03.2017 vide voucher number 1617001301. In view of this it is claimed that complaint is not maintainable.  

3.             Complainant to prove her case tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and thereafter closed evidence. On the other hand counsel for the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 of Sh. SP Sharma, Sr. Divisional Manager of OPs along with documents Ex.OP-1 and Ex OP-2 and then closed the evidence.

4.             Written arguments not submitted. None appeared for complainant since long and as such after perusing the file and hearing arguments of counsel for OPs, this complaint decided.

5.             From pleadings of the parties and submitted documents, there remains no dispute that on death of insured cow veterinary health certificate Ex.C-1 was issued along with certificate Ex.C-3 accompanied with post mortem report. On submission of claim regarding dead cow the same was got processed by OPs by appointing Dr. YPC Mehta veterinary doctor as investigating   officer.  Intimation in this respect was given to the complainant and that is why information was sent vide letter Ex.C-4 by mentioning name of the investigator as Dr. YPC Mehta. Through Ex.C-4 dated 04.01.2017 request was submitted for paying the claim within 7 days of receipt of letter. Insurance claim letter Ex.C-5 was also submitted by complainant and then on the basis of same an amount of Rs.60,000/- was paid as per terms of Ex.C-2 = Ex.OP-1 through payment voucher Ex.OP-2 to complainant. Amount of Rs.60,000/- was credited to the account of complainant on 15.03.2017 through payment voucher Ex.OP-2 and as such certainly submission advanced by counsel for OPs has force that payable insured amount has already been paid. Even claim for payment of Rs.60,000/- as sum insured put forth through complaint and as such certainly claim of complainant in that respect is satisfied. This complaint was filed on 08.02.2017, but payment made on 15.03.2017 whereas power of attorney filed by counsel for OPs on 17.03.2017 and as such it is obvious that payment was made of the due amount by OPs before putting in appearance in this Forum. However, notice of complaint was accepted by Shri Sukaam Gupta, Advocate on behalf of OPs on 14.02.2017 by filing memo of appearance and as such it is obvious that due payable amount paid to complainant at earliest and complainant was not saddled with the inconvenience of getting service of OPs effected. This conduct of OPs shows that they never lingered on the matter regarding payment of due amount, but due amount paid immediately after receipt of report of the investigator. So complainant not entitled to any amount of compensation or litigation expenses because she herself presented the complaint in haste without bothering about outcome of issued letter Ex.C-4 dated 04.01.2017. Rather on Ex.C-5 endorsement is there as if amount of Rs.60,000/- received in the account on 16.01.2017 and as such complaint virtually has become infructuous. Complainant not entitled to any amount of compensation for harassment or litigation expenses because no harassment of complainant done by OPs at all.

6.             As a sequel of above discussion, complaint dismissed without any order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

November 05, 2019.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member