Haryana

Karnal

CC/284/2022

Randhir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Subhash Chander

20 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 284 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt.23.05.2022

                                                        Date of Decision:20.03.2024

 

Randhir Singh aged about 67 years son of Shri Rattan Singh, resident of Village Rasin, Tehsil and District Karnal, Aadhar No.3797 6538 1907.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

The New India Assurance Company Limited opposite Bus Stand, 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. Suman Singh……Member

          

 Argued by: Shri Subhash Chander, counsel for complainant.

                    Shri Sudarshan Patlan, 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.31270047202700142239, valid from 16.03.2021 to 15.03.2022. The insured value of the said cow is Rs.45,000/-. The OP insured the said cow after due verification. Unfortunately, on 31.08.2021 the said cow fell ill and was got treated by Veterinary Surgeon, Gharaunda, Karnal, but her illness could not be cured and ultimately she died on the same day due to illness. The postmortem of said animal was conducted. 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 claim 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 cow, the OP got surveyed the site from its authorized surveyor. The surveyor after visiting the pot made a report that “tag has been received in tempered condition from insured alongwith PMR and claim form. Since, the tag has been received in tempered condition from the insured hence the claim is not payable as per the terms and condition 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 20.12.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence, copy of repudiation letter dated 03.03.2022 Ex.OP1, copy of policy Ex.OP2, copy of investigation report Ex.OP3, photocopy of temper tag Ex.OP4 and Ex.OP5 and closed the evidence on 18.10.2023 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 Veterinary Hospital, but she died on the same day. 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 03.03.2022 on the false and frivolous grounds 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 got his cow insured with OP for the sum insured of Rs.45,000/- and cow was died during the subsistence of the insurance policy.

11.           The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OP, vide letter Ex.OP1 dated 03.03.2022 on the ground that the tag of cattle was in tempered/broken condition.

12.           The onus to prove 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 tampered condition. In the post mortem report Ex.C1, tag number is readable and there is no tempering in the tag number. Moreover, the OP has placed on file, only the photocopy of the tag and had not produced the original tag, from which it can be ascertained actually the tag was tempered or not. If for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that the tag was broken condition, 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 OP 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: 20.03.2024

                                                                President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                        (Vineet Kaushik)       (Dr.Suman Singh)

                              Member                       Member