DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 151 of 11-04-2013

Decided on 24-07-2013

Palwinder Singh son of Gurbaksh Singh, R/o V. Lehra Khana, Tehsil and District Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office at The Mall, Bathinda, through its Divisional Manager

2. State Bank of India, Lehra Mohabbat through its Branch Manager

    

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member

For the Complainant : Sh. Inderjit Singh Mann, counsel for the complainant.

For the opposite parties : Sh. M.L. Bansal, counsel for opposite party No. 1.

Sh. Naveen Goyal, counsel for opposite party No. 2.

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he is owner of five cows including H F/black and white cow. The said cows were purchased by the complainant for the purpose of earning his livelihood after availing financial assistance from opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 got insured all the cows with opposite party No. 1 vide insurance policy No. 36060447110400000120 for the period from 24-11-2011 to 23-11-2012. The H F/black and white cow has been insured by opposite party No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 48,000/-. The complainant alleged that the opposite party No. 1 did not supply any terms and conditions of the policy to him. The opposite party No. 1 insured the cows of the complainant after getting health cum evaluation certificate from veterinary officer, civil veterinary hospital, Lehra Khana, District Bathinda. The veterinary officer after examination declared the animals in question free from any disease and recommended for cattle insurance. The opposite party No. 1 allotted Tag No. 29167 to the H F/black and white cow of the complainant and attached the same with its ear. The said cow died on 21-12-2011. The post mortem examination of the cow was conducted by the Veterinary Officer, civil veterinary hospital, Lehra Khana, District Bathinda. The intimation in this regard was sent to the opposite party No. 1 for payment of claim through opposite party No. 2 and complainant submitted all the required documents alongwith tag and claim form to opposite party No. 2 for forwarding the same to opposite party No. 1. Accordingly, the opposite party No. 2 lodged the claim of the complainant with opposite party No. 1 with all the said documents and tag vide their letter dated 22-02-2012. The complainant alleged that neither he nor opposite party No. 2 has received the claim from opposite party No. 1 so far despite their repeated requests. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay the claim amount of Rs. 48,000/- with interest alongwith compensation and cost to him.

2. The opposite parties filed their separate written statement. The opposite party No. 1 has admitted that the complainant got his cattles insured with it. The opposite party No. 1 has pleaded that it has received the intimation from opposite party No. 2 and that too after the gap of two months whereas the complainant was required to intimate the opposite party No. 1 immediately. Accordingly, the claim of the complainant has been repudiated/filed as 'no claim' by opposite party No. 1 vide letter dated 13-9-2012 after thorough investigation i.e. due to delayed intimation the opposite party No. 1 was unable to inspect the CARCASS. The opposite party No. 1 has further pleaded that claim if any, is payable only as per terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant cannot be allowed to take the benefit of his own wrongs.

3. The opposite party No. 2 in its separate written statement has admitted that the complainant availed the loan from opposite party No. 2 and got insured his animals with opposite party No. 1. He reported regarding the death of animal to it. The opposite party No. 2 has pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 2 as it has duly forwarded the claim of the complainant to opposite party No. 1 and thereafter the matter was to be resolved or settled by opposite party No. 1. The claim of the complainant was rightly submitted by opposite party No. 2 well within time and without any delay, but the claim was to be met by the opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 2 has further pleaded that the dispute is between the complainant and opposite party No. 1 and there is no lapse or deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 2.

4. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

5. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

6. These are undisputed facts between the parties that the cattles of the complainant were insured with opposite party No. 1 through opposite party No. 2 vide Ex. OP-1/1 insurance policy No. 36060447110400000120 for the period from 24-11-2011 to 23-11-2012 as he availed financial assistance from opposite party No. 2 for buying the cattles. One cattle, black and white colour, out of the insured cattles, bearing Tag No. 29167 insured for Rs. 48,000/- died on 21-12-2011. The complainant filed the claim documents alongwith aforesaid tag with opposite party No. 2 for onwards submission to opposite party No. 1, but nothing has been paid to him till date.

7. The submission of the learned counsel for the complainant is that despite submission of all the documents alongwith tag of the of aforesaid died cattle with opposite party No. 2, the opposite parties have not paid the genuine claim of the complainant till date, hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

8. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 is that the opposite party No. 1 has received intimation of death of cattle in question from opposite party No. 2 after the gap of two months whereas the complainant was required to intimate the opposite party No. 1 immediately. Thus, the claim of the complainant has been repudiated/filed as 'no claim' by opposite party No. 1 vide letter dated 13-9-2012 after thorough investigation i.e. due to delayed intimation, the opposite party No. 1 could not inspect the CARCASS.

9. The submission of opposite party No. 2 is that it has duly forwarded the claim of the complainant to opposite party No. 1 well within time and without any delay and thereafter the matter was to be resolved or settled by opposite party No. 1, thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1.

10. A perusal of cattle insurance policy OP-1/1 reveals that the name of insured is mentioned as “SBI-LM/A/c Mr. Palwinder Singh, S/o Mr. Gurbaksh Singh (R2999780) meaning thereby that since the financial assistance was provided by the opposite party No. 2 to the complainant for buying the cattles, the insurance was arranged by opposite party No. 2 from opposite party No. 1 and this is the admitted fact. Thus, after the death of cattle in question, the complainant submitted all the required documents with opposite party No. 1, who arranged the insurance. The opposite party No. 2 has specifically mentioned in para No. 4 of its written statement that claim was rightly submitted by it well within time and without any delay. Moreover, no evidence has been placed on file by the opposite party No. 1 to prove that policy alongwith terms and condition was supplied to the complainant to make him aware that in case of death of insured cattle, immediate intimation is required.

11. After receipt of documents, the opposite party No. 1 deputed Mr. Rajesh Garg, as investigator to investigate the claim in question. The report of said investigator is page No. 13 and 14 of OP-1/1. A perusal of this document reveals that at page 14 under the heading Observation and remarks, he has opined :-

    “1. As per the Vety. Certificate, the Tag No. 29167 is intact in the left ear of the cow.

    2. The market value of the cow as per Veterinary doctor report is Rs. 48,000/-.

    3. That the dead cow which was purchased was neither changed nor sold.

    So, if all the particular of the dead cow tallies with the health certificate, then claim is genuine and may be dealt as per policy terms and conditions.

    The said investigator, however, has mentioned in his report that no health certificate was provided to him by the office or the insured, but a perusal of claim file OP-1/1 reveals that its page 25 is the 'Health Certificate' which has been issued on 8-6-2010 at 5.50 p.m. There is no dispute between the parties regarding the insurance of cattle and its death. Hence, when the insurance of dead cattle is admitted, it means that the particulars of dead cattle tallies with the health certificate.

12. Hence, keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the evidence placed on file by the parties, this Forum is of the considered opinion that there was no delay in filing the claim with opposite party No. 1. Moreover, the opposite party No. 1 cannot deny the claim of the complainant on the ground of delayed intimation as it is not a theft case where any police investigation was required and especially when the investigator deputed by opposite party No. 1 after thorough investigation recommended the claim of the complainant.

13. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is dismissed qua opposite party No. 2 and accepted with cost and compensation of Rs. 3,000/- against opposite party No. 1 The opposite party No. 1 is directed to pay to the complainant Rs. 48,000/- being the sum assured of the cattle in question alongwith interest @ 9 % P.A. w.e.f. 20-03-2012 (The date calculated on expiry of three months from the date of lodging of claim, a period required for processing the claim in an effective manner in normal course) within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which an amount of Rs. 48,000/- plus interest will yield further interest @ 9% P.A. till realization.

    A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs and the file be consigned to the record.

    Pronounced in open Forum

    24-07-2013

    (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

    President

     

    (Amarjeet Paul)

    Member

     

     

    (Sukhwinder Kaur)

    Member