Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/428/2015

M/s Haryana Dairy Farms - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar

12 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/428/2015
Date of Institution	:	09/07/2015
Date of Decision	:	12/01/2016

 

 

M/s Haryana Dairy Farms, Village Dehri, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala, Through its partner Sh. Sharad K. Gupta.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

The New India Assurance Company Ltd., through its Branch Manager, LIC Building, 1^st Floor, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh

……Opposite Party

 

 

QUORUM:	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                               

                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Sukaam Gupta, Counsel for OP

                       

                 

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.         M/s Haryana Dairy Farms, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, through its partner, against The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Opposite Party (hereinafter called the OP), alleging that it purchased 53 cows through State Bank of India Panchkula which were insured with the OP for the period from 2.12.2014 to 1.12.2015 vide policy (Annexure C-1).

                According to the complainant, on 28.4.2015, one cow bearing ear tag No.104 died which was insured for Rs.70,000/-.  The complainant gave due information to the OP, who appointed investigator.  The complainant completed all the formalities and supplied all the required/demanded documents. However, on 30.5.2015, the complainant came to know from the bank that the OP had transferred Rs.65,000/- directly to the loan account through NEFT instead of Rs.70,000/-. On 1.6.2015, the complainant wrote a letter to the OP with the request to remit the balance amount of Rs.5,000/-, but, to no avail. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the instant complaint. 

2.         In its written statement, the OP has not disputed the factual matrix.  It has been averred that after receiving intimation of death of the cattle in question, the OP deputed the investigator, Dr. S.S. Soni, who submitted his independent investigation report with the opinion that the cattle in question was though insured for Rs.70,000/-, but, its market value was not more than Rs.65,000/- at the time of death. It has been contended that the claim of the complainant was settled for Rs.65,000/- in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
3.         In its replication, the complainant has controverted the stand of the OP and reiterated its own.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties. 
6.         Admittedly the cow of the complainant was insured for a sum of Rs.70,000/- vide Cattle Insurance Policy Annexure C-1 for the period from 2.12.2014 to 1.12.2015. Unfortunately, the said cow died on 28.4.2015. The complainant gave intimation to the OP and completed all the formalities. However, the OP transferred an amount of Rs.65,000/- in the account of the complainant through NEFT. The sole question, which requires to be determined is as to whether the OP rightly made payment of Rs.65,000/- to the complainant or it is liable to pay the amount of Rs.70,000/- as per policy as claimed by the complainant.
7.         The stand taken by OP is that as per the report of the investigator, though the cattle in question was insured for Rs.70,000/-, but, when it died, its market value was not more than Rs.65,000/- as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. As such the said amount was transferred to the account of the complainant. Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of the OP.
8.         We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above arguments of the learned Counsel for the OP, but, we regret our inability to accept the same. It is noteworthy that as per the Vety. Certificate dated 29.4.2015 (Annexure C-5), the value of the deceased cow was assessed at Rs.86,000/- prior to death. The cow was insured for the period from 2.12.2014 to 1.12.2015 as per Annexure C-1 and it died on 28.4.2015 i.e. approx. within 5 months of the inception of the insurance policy. According to the OP, the market value was based on the milk yield capacity/potential and the general condition of the dead cow prior to its death. However, there is no document on record which indicate general condition of the cow prior to its death. We are unable to accept that the market value of the cow decreased by Rs.5,000/- within a period of approx. 5 months of the inception of the policy as compared to the insured value. There is no other data on record proving health of the cow got deteriorated and potential decreased after the inception of the policy and prior to its death. The OP could reduce the market value had the cow been not yielding milk. We are of the view that the Investigator deducted the amount of Rs.5,000/- from the insured value of the cow, without any rhyme or reason. Such a reduction in the market value is arbitrary and not based on just grounds. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the conduct of the OP points out towards adoption of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
9.         In addition, it is also pertinent to note that the amount of Rs.65,000/- was transferred in the account of the complainant without giving it an opportunity of lodging any protest. Had the complainant been given an opportunity, it could explain that the reduction was not justified on account of condition of the cow prior to its death.  Hence, on account of the conduct and anti-consumer attitude of the OP, the complainant has suffered harassment and mental agony.
10.         In view of the above discussion, we find merit in the complaint and the same is partly allowed. OP is directed:-

(i)     To make payment of an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant with interest @9% p.a. from the date of transfer of amount of Rs.65,000/- in the account of the complainant through NEFT till its realization.

(ii)    To make payment of the composite amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for harassment and mental agony and litigation expenses.     

11.         This order shall be complied with by the OP within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, OP shall be liable to refund the above said awarded amounts to the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint, till its realization.
12.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
12/01/2016	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member