Haryana

Karnal

CC/115/2021

Ishant - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Parshant Pahwa

20 Mar 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 115 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.23.02.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:20.03.2023

 

Ishant son of Shri Charanjeet Grover, resident of village Kunjpura Tehsil and District Karnal, aged about 32 years. Aadhar no.9794 5438 7438.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

The New India Assurance Company Limited having its office opposite Bus Stand, Old G.T. Road, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Shri Parshant Pahwa, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Naveen Khetarpal, counsel for the OP.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP) on the averments that complainant is an agriculturist by profession and dependents upon the agriculture and dairy farming profession. The complainant was owner of a cow and the said cow was got insured with the OP, vide insurance policy no.249268, valid from 18.04.2020 to 17.04.2021. The insured value of the said cow is Rs.45,000/-. A tag bearing no.160016/961085 was issued to the said cow. The OP insured the said cow after due verification. Unfortunately, on 30.08.2020 the said cow fell ill and was got treated from Dr. Monika Chauhan, Government Veterinary Hospital, Kunjpura but her illness could not be cured and ultimately she died on 03.09.2020 due to illness. The postmortem of said animal was conducted by Veterinary Surgeon, village Kunjpura Tehsil and District Karnal. Complainant lodged a claim with the OP for payment of insured amount and got completed all the formalities. After that complainant visited the office of OP so many times and requested to settle the claim but OP did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly refused to pay any amount to the complainant. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that after getting intimation about the death of cattle independent investigator Shri S.K. Aggarwal was appointed for investigation who submitted his report and as per his report tag of cattle was in tempered/broken condition, which constitutes gross violation of terms and conditions of the policy. The insurance company is not liable to pay insured/claim amount. So, he is not entitled for any relief. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of post mortem report Ex.C1, copy of insurance policy Ex.C2, photographs of dead cow Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on 22.12.2021 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of K.K. Sachdeva, Senior Divisional Manager Ex.RW1/A, copy of repudiation letter dated 07.12.2020 Ex.R1, copy of investigation report Ex.R2, copy of terms and conditions of the insurance policy Ex.R3 and closed the evidence on 03.10.2020 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant got insured his cow with the OP and the insured value was Rs.45,000/-. On 30.08.2020, the said cow fell ill and got treated from Government Veterinary Hospital, Kunjpura, but she died on 03.09.2020. The complainant intimated the OP about the death of insured cow and lodged the claim and also completed all the formalities. Complainant requested the OP several times to settle the claim but OP did not pay the claim and repudiated the same, vide letter dated 07.12.2020 on the ground that tag of cattle was in tempered/broken condition and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that as per the investigation report, tag of cattle was in tempered/broken condition, which constitutes violation of terms and conditions of the policy and the insurance company is not liable to pay the claim amount and rightly repudiated the claim of complainant prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, the complainant had got insured his cow with OP for the sum insured of Rs.45,000/- and she had died during the subsistence of the insurance policy.

11.           The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OPs, vide letter Ex.R2 dated 07.12.2020 on the ground that the tag of cattle was in tempered/broken condition.

12.           The onus to prove the its case was relied upon the OP but OP has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. OP had repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the tag was in broken condition. It is evident from post mortem report Ex.C1, tag number has been mentioned. Meaning, thereby, the tag number was readable on the tag at that time. If for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that the tag was broken. In that situation, it cannot be expected from the animals, to take care of a tag in proper manner. Hence, plea taken by the OP has no force.

13.           Further,  Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Smt. Usha Yadav & others 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 111, has held as under:-

“It seems that the Insurance Companies are only interested in earning the premiums which are rather too stiff now a days, but are not keen and are found to be evasive to discharge their liability. In large number of cases, the Insurance companies make the effected people to fight for getting their genuine claims. The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreements, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy. This is, thus pressed into service to either repudiate the claim or to reject the same. The Insurance Companies normally build their case on such clauses of the policy, but would adopt methods which would not be governed by the strict conditions contained in the policy”.

14.           Keeping in view that the ratio of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment and the facts and circumstances of the present complaint, we are of the considered view that the act of the OP while repudiating the claim of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, which is otherwise proved genuine one.

15.           As per insurance policy Ex.C2, the sum insured is of Rs.45,000/-. Hence, complainant is entitled for the said amount alongwith interest, compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.

16.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.45,000/- as insured amount to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim till its realization. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.5500/-for the litigation expense. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 20.03.2023

                                                                President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                        (Vineet Kaushik)       (Rekha Chaudhary)

                              Member                       Member