DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 442 of 30.11.2017

                                      Decided on:                           9.7.2021

Satnam Singh, aged 29 years, son of Sh.Jarnail Singh, resident of village Kansuha Khurd, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. The New India Assurance Company Limited, 7, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala through its Senior Divisional Manager.
2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Bahadurgarh, Patiala, through its Branch Manager.
3. The Nabha Primary Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Limited, H.No.398/2, Opposite College Ground, Hira Mahal, Nabha, District Patiala, through its Branch Manager.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                       Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

ARGUED BY     

                                      Sh.Anand Puri,counsel for complainant.

                                      OPs No.1&3 ex-parte

                                      Sh.D.P.S.Anand, counsel for OP No.2      

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Satnam Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against The New India Assurance Company Limited and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act(for short the Act).
2. The brief facts of the case are that after taking loan from OP No.3, the complainant purchased six cows and got the cows insured with OPs No.1&2 through OP No.3 vide policy No.36140447170400000025 for the period from 13.4.2017 to 12.4.2018 for the value of Rs.60,000/-of each cow. The health certificate dated 31.3.2017 was also issued by the authorized doctor of the company. The insured cows were issued tag Nos.71830 to 71835 by the official/agent of the company. It is averred that cow bearing tag No.71832 died on 3.5.2017 and intimation regarding the death of the aforesaid cow was  given to OP No.3 on 15.5.2017.It is further averred that cow bearing tag No.71834 was also died on 9.6.2017 and intimation regarding the death of aforesaid cow was  give to OP No.3 on 12.6.2017, who sent insurance policy, health certificate and tag etc. to OPs No.1&2. The complainant also visited the office of OPs No.1&2 several time but they did not pay any heed and ultimately they rejected the claim of the complainant on 19.7.2017 on flimsy ground that “as per the investigation report, the dead animal is not the same which was insured in the policy”. There is thus, deficiency in service on the part of the OPs which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer for giving directions to the OPs to pay Rs.1,20,000/- i.e. Rs.60,000/- of each cow alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of death of cows ; to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and Rs.20,000/- as costs of litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice OP No.2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. None appeared on behalf of OP No.1 despite service and was accordingly proceeded against exparte. Whereas at the first instance Sh.Sarabjit Singh, clerk of OP No.3 appeared but thereafter none appeared on behalf OP No.3 and thus OP No.3 was also proceeded against ex-parte.
4. In the written reply filed by OP No.2 preliminary objections have been raised to the extent that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant does not fall under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that the Hon’ble Court has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint.
5. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant has purchased insurance policy for six cows from the OP for the period from 13.4.2017 to 12.4.2018 for a sum of Rs.60,000/-of each cow. It is further submitted that the six cows insured with the OP were having tag No.71830 to 71835 with a health certificate issued by the doctor.It is pleaded that on receipt of intimation of the death of cow bearing tag No.71832 on 15.5.2017, they deputed Dr.Jaspal Singh Madhok, Investigator, Patiala who after investigation vide his report dated 15.7.2017 submitted that there was no tag affixed in the animal at the time of death which is also confirmed from the postmortem report conducted by veterinary officer, IC Civil Veterinary Hospital, Tohra. The description of the animal given in the policy and the health certificate also did not tally with the description mentioned in the PMR. Similarly on receipt of intimation with regard to death of cow having tag No.71834 on 12.6.2017 they deputed Dr.Jaspal Singh Madhok, Investigator, he contacted the complainant who confirmed that one of his cow bearing tag No.71834 died on 9.6.2017 after remaining sick for three days. The investigator obtained Post Mortem Report, claim form and policy. It is pleaded that the description of dead animal did not tally with the description of animal mentioned in the policy and health certificate. It is further pleaded that the description of animal as per policy and health certificate is HF cross , colour black and white, dehorned, SOT white with ear tag 71834.It is submitted that from the photo submitted by the complainant which is duly attested by the veterinary officer, it is found that the colour of the animal is brownish black and white, belly and upper white, all four legs white dehorned with SOT white, which shows that the animal is not the same which was insured and as such the claim was repudiated as per the terms and conditions of the policy.There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments, the OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C7 and closed the evidence.
7. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP No.2 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Rajinder Singh Mahatam, Sr.Divisional Manager of OP, Ex.OPB affidavit of Dr.J.S.Madhok, Investigator alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP16 and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
9.  The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that six cows were insured with OPs No.1&2 and the insurance certificate is on the file. The ld. counsel further argued that one cow having tag no.71832 died on 3.5.2017 and another cow bearing tag No.71834 died on 9.6.2017.The ld. counsel further argued that postmortem of both the cows was got conducted but the claim was rejected on the ground that the dead animal is not the same which was insured in the policy. The ld. counsel further argued that the claim was wrongly rejected, so the complaint be allowed.
10. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that onus was on the complainant to prove that cows which were insured vide cattle insurance policy,Ex.C3 bearing tag No.71832 and 71834 died. The ld. counsel further argued that there is no evidence on the file to prove that both these cows having tags as stated above have died. The ld. counsel further argued that  the identity of the cows which were died having tag Nos.71832 and 718334 is not proved with the cows which were died. The ld. counsel further argued that in the postmortem report the tag number of the dead cows is not mentioned. The ld. counsel further argued that the investigator i.e. Veterinary doctor vide his report has stated that the identity of the cows is not proved .So the complaint be dismissed.
11. In rebuttal, the ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that in the policy vide which the cows were insured the identity of the dead animal was shown as HFC Black and white WI TH Star on F/head Dehorned SOT. The ld. counsel further argued that in the postmortem report, it is also mentioned that colour is white with few black spots. The ld. counsel further argued that the investigator report is wrong.
12. To prove his case, the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA and has deposed as per his complaint,Ex.C1 is the cattle insurance policy vide which six cows of the complainant were insured and tag nos. from 71830 to 71835 are mentioned. The value of each cow is mentioned as Rs.60,000/-.The identity of each cow is also mentioned in the insurance policy. Ex.C2 is the health certificate,Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 are the letters written by the complainant ,Ex.C5 and Ex.C6 are rejection letters dated 19.7.2017,Ex.C7 is letter written by the complainant
13.  On the other hand Sh.Rajinder Singh Mahatam, Sr.Divisional Manager has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA and has deposed as per the written statement, Ex.OPB is the affidavit of Dr.J.S.Madhok,Investigator,Ex.OP1 is rejection letter, Ex.OP2 is investigation report, Ex.OP3 is postmortem report, Ex.OP4 livestock claim form, Ex.OP5 is certificate of veterinary doctor, Ex.OP6 is cattle insurance policy, Ex.OP7 is health certificate, Ex.OP8 is the letter written by the complainant for claim, Ex.OP9 is rejection letter, Ex.OP10 is investigation report, Ex.OP11 is photograph of dead animal, Ex.OP11 is copy of postmortem report, Ex.OP12 is certificate given by veterinary doctor,Ex.OP13 is livestock claim form,Ex.OP15 is health certificate,Ex.OP16 is claim letter and closed the evidence.
14. Ex.C1 is cattle insurance policy vide which six cows were insured for Rs.60,000/-each and tags were mentioned in the said policy. Now as per the complainant cattle with identity No.71832 and 71834 had died. Both the cattle were of black and white in colour. In the pleadings the claim of the complainant was rejected by the insurance company on the ground that cows which had died were not the same which were insured as the tag numbers were not mentioned. In para no.5 of the pleadings, it is mentioned that intimation with regard to death of animal bearing tag No.71832 was died on 3.5.2017 and of 2^nd cow  bearing tag No.71834 was died on  9.6.2017 .The OPs in the pleadings have specifically stated that dead cow was not the same which was insured. It is not mentioned in the pleadings of the complainant that the tags of the dead cows have been misplaced. No intimation have ever been given by the complainant to the insurance company that tag of the cow having tag no.71832 which had died was misplaced. The complainant never tried to new tag number from the insurance company. The complainant if he wants to succeed in his complaint, it was incumbent upon him to prove that the cows which were died were having tags No.71832 and 71834. As per the policy,Ex.C1 the  colour of both the cows is mentioned HFC black & white Dehorned  SOT white.
15. From the two postmortem reports on the file, one is Ex.OP3 dated 3.5.2017, in which tag number is not mentioned. So vide this report it is not proved that whether the cow which had died on 3.5.2017 was the same which was insured with the insurance company. The 2^nd postmortem report is Ex.OP12 dated 9.6.2017 and in this report t tag number 71834 is mentioned .So it is clear that the cow having tag No.71834 had died and postmortem report Ex.OP12 is on the file. It is also mentioned in the postmortem that cattle died due to some disease. So it is clear that the complainant has failed to prove that cattle bearing tag No.71832 was the same which had died on 3.5.2017 and postmortem report Ex.OP3 was conducted. However, it is proved that cattle bearing tag No.71834 had died and the postmortem report Ex.OP12 is on the file in which tag number is mentioned. So the identity of the cow 71834 is proved on the file.
16. So due to our above discussion, this complaint is partly allowed and the insurance company is directed to pay Rs.60,000/- of one cow bearing tag No.71834 which was died on 9.6.2017, alongwith interest@ 6% per annum from the date of death i.e. 9.6.2017 till realization .They are further  directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and another amount of Rs.5000/-as costs of litigation.      

Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:9.7.2021         

                                             Vinod Kumar Gulati       Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                                    Member                                President