District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tarn Taran.

C.C. No. No                   : 65 of 2014

Date of Institution  : 19.09-2014

Date of Decision    : 28.04.2015

Rajbinder Kaur wife of Harpal Singh, resident of Village Kirtowal, Tehsil: Patti, District Tarn Taran.

                                                                   …Complainant

Versus

1. The New India Assurance Company Limited, New India Insurance Building, 87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001, through its M.D.
2. Senior Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited, G.T. Road, Rayya District Amritsar.
3. State Bank of India Branch, Chuslewal, Camp at Patti, Tehsil: Patti, District Tarn Taran, through its Branch Manager.
4. Dr.Jasdeep Singh, Rural Veterinary Officer, Village: Sabrahn, Tehsil: Patti, District Tarn Taran.

…Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12  & 13 Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

For the Complainant                          : Sh.H.S.Sandhu, Advocate

For Opposite Parties No.1 & 2        : Sh. N.P.Sharma, Advocate

For Opposite Party No.3           : Sh.B.S.Dhillon, Advocate       

For Opposite Party No.4               : Ex Parte

Quorum:               Sh. S.K. Goel, President.

Sh. R.D. Sharma, Member.

Smt.Jaswinder Kaur, Member

Order dictated by Sh. S.K.Goel, President

1. Smt.Rajbinder Kaur wife of Sh.Harpal Singh, complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short ‘the Act’) against The New India Assurance Company Limited, New India Insurance Building, 87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001, through its M.D and others (for short ‘the opposite parties’).
2. Facts emerging from the complaint are that the complainant is farmer and for her personal dairy needs, she purchased 5 cows and obtained dairy loan to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/- on 23.7.2012 from Opposite Party No.3-Bank. Said Opposite Party No.3-Bank insured these five cows with Opposite Parties No.1 and 2-Insurance Company by paying Rs.12,000/- as premium and debited this amount in the loan account of the complainant on 21.9.2012. Moreover, the proposal form was filled by agent of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2-Insurance Company at the address of the complainant village; Kirtowal, Tehsil: Patti, District Tarn Taran by visiting personally. Each cow of the complainant was insured for more than Rs.40,000/- upto Rs.59,000/- depending upon the value of the cows. The tags to identify the cows were affixed by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2-Insurance Company.
3. It was alleged that on 18.9.2013 one of the cows having tag No. 2844 died, then complainant immediately intimated its death to opposite parties and the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2-Insurance Company sent their surveyor on the same day and he was accompanied by Opposite Party No.4-Doctor. The surveyor of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2-Insurance Company prepared veterinary certificate, detached the tag affixed on the dead cow. After that the Opposite Party No.4-Doctor conducted post mortem of the dead body of the cow and photographs of dead cow were also taken by the surveyor and he also obtained the photo copy of the post mortem. Thereafter, the surveyor further assured that he will provide the required documents i.e. photographs, post mortem report, tag and the veterinary certificate to Opposite Parties No.1 and 2-Insurance Company for the purpose of releasing the claim of the dead cow  which had the market value of Rs.50,000/- at the time of obtaining the insurance policy.  It was further pleaded that Opposite Party No.3-Bank also forwarded  the photographs of the dead cow alongwith  post mortem report, tag and claim form to Opposite Parties No.1 and 2-Insurance Company on 20.09.2013. Complainant alleges that Opposite Parties No.1 and 2-Insurance Company have not released the claim despite visiting the Opposite Party No.2-Insurance Company many times. Hence, the present complaint s filed seeking the following reliefs:-   
   1. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2-Insurance Company may kindly be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- being the amount insured by them of the dead cow.
   2. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2-Insurance Company may kindly be directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- for causing harassment of the complainant.
   3. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2-Insurance Company may kindly be directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.
4. Notice was issued to all the opposite parties.
5. Sh.N.P.Sharma, Advocate ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 and 2-Insurance Company appeared. However, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2-Insurance Company failed to file the written version to the complaint despite availing ample opportunities.
6. Opposite Party No.3-Bank has filed its reply taking preliminary objections on the ground of maintainability, locus standi and jurisdiction. On merits, Opposite Party No.3-Bank has denied the negligence and deficiency in service on their part. However, Opposite Party No.3-Bank  has reiterated the averment of para No.6 of the complaint admitting that they forwarded the photographs of the dead  cow alognwith its postmortem report, tag and claim form to Opposite Parties No.1 and 2-Insurance Company. They have finally prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
7. Separate written version has been filed by Opposite Party No.4-Doctor stating that he conducted the postmortem on 18.9.2013 of the dead cow having white-black colour and he also detached the tag from the dead cow and number on which was read as 284 and the last digit on the tag was faded one and could not be read clearly, so the Opposite Party No.4-Doctor did not mention the last digit in the post mortem report, but stated that the number was of 4 digit. Opposite Party No.4-Doctor also averred that he forwarded the post mortem report alongwith tag to Opposite Party No.3-Bank as the cow was purchased by the purchased by the complainant by availing loan from them. Finally, Opposite Party No.4-Doctor has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 
8. During the pendency of the present complaint the opposite party No. 4 did not appear, therefore exparte proceedings have been initiated against the opposite party No. 4.
9. In order to support her case, the complainant has tendered in to evidence her affidavit Ex.C1, statement of account Ex.C2, cattle insurance policy Ex.C3,  copy of letter Ex.C4, copy of veterinary certificate Ex.C5,  copy of claim form Ex.C6, copy of report Ex.C7, copy of application Ex.C8, copy of repudiation letter Ex.C9 and closed the evidence.
10. To rebut the case of the complainant, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2-Insurance Company tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.S.S.Gill, Divisional Manger Ex.OP1 & 2/1, affidavit of Sandeep Dutt, Investigator Ex.OP1 & 2/2, insurance policy Ex.OP1 & 2/3,  certificate of endorsement of insurance Ex.OP1 & 2/4 alongwith documents Mark A to mark G and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2-Insurance Company.
11. Opposite Party No.3-Bank tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Santosh Kumar Barfa, Assistant Manger Ex.OP3/1, account statement Ex.OP3/2, copy of insurance policy Ex.OP3/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.3-Bank.
12. We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
13. In order to prove her case, the complainant has placed on record her detailed affidavit Ex. C.1 wherein she has stated that she is a farmer and has kept some cows for personal dairy and obtained dairy loan for a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- on 23.7.2013 from the opposite party No. 3 bank and said bank insured these 5 cows with the opposite parties No. 1 and 2- insurance company by payment of Rs. 12,000/- as premium and said premium amount has been debited in her loan account on 21.9.2012. She further stated that proposal Form was filled by agent of opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and tags to identify cows were fixed by the insurance company and insurance proposal Form was completed by mentioning tag Numbers of the cows.  She further stated that on 18.9.2013 one of the cow having tag Number 2844 died and she immediately intimated the death of the cow to the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 sent their surveyor on the same day alongwith veterinary doctor (opposite party No. 4). She further stated that the surveyor of the opposite party prepared the veterinary certificate and doctor conducted the postmortem of dead cow and photographs were also taken by surveyor. The complainant further stated that the bank- opposite party No. 3 also forwarded the photographs of the dead cow alongwith postmortem report of the cow, tag and claim form to the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 on 20.9.2013 from its branch. But the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 did not release the claim to the complainant. To prove her case further the complainant has also placed on record statement of account Ex. C.2 which shows the payment of the premium insurance to the tune of Rs. 12,000/-. Ex. C.3 is the cattle insurance policy in favour of complainant Rajbinder Kaur showing the premium paid to the tune of Rs. 12,000/- and insurance of 5 cows. Ex. C.3 further shows that the policy was valid from 24.9.2012 till 23.9.2015. Ex. C.5 is veterinary certificate of cow insured for Rs. 50,000/- and date of death was 18.9.2013. Ex. C.8 is letter written by the complainant to insurance company intimating the date of death of cow on 18.9.2013.
14. On the basis of evidence, the counsel for the complainant contended that there was no dispute regarding the death of cow as well as insurance of cow in question and therefore the complainant is entitled to the insurance amount of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith interest.
15. On the other hand,  Ld. Counsel for the insurance company has mainly contended that the complainant has failed to establish the identity of the dead cow and without identification this Forum cannot arrive at the correct conclusion.
16. Having going through the evidence on record and hearing the submissions of both the parties, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the insurance company. Perusal of the insurance policy Ex. C.3 shows that the complainant insured her 5 cows with identification/ tag Numbers NIA2840 to NIA2844 with New India Insurance company-opposite parties No. 1 and 2 by paying premium of Rs. 12,000/-. This insurance part has not been denied by the insurance company. Veterinary certificate Ex. C.5 shows that the cow in question died on 18.9.2013 and the colour of the cow was white black and cow died due to cardiac arrest. Ex. C.7 postmortem report also shows the death of cow having colour white black with identification mark Tag No. 284. In the written version, the Veterinary Doctor-opposite party No. 4 has stated that he conducted the postmortem on 18.9.2013 of the dead cow having white black colour and he detached tag of the dead cow, the Number of which was read as 284 and the last digit was faded and could not be read clearly but actually the Number was of 4 digits. It is also relevant to refer the affidavit of Sandeep Dutta (surveyor) Ex. OP 1, 2/2 wherein he stated that he observed the tag Number of the dead cow as 2843 which was intact in the ear of dead cow. In his report photostat copy mark B, he stated that he firstly contacted the complainant and her statement was recorded wherein the complainant told that one cow bearing Tag Number NIA 2843 was died on 18.9.2013 and colour of the cow was black and white. This report also contains the statement of Mohinder Singh Nambardar who has also stated that one cow of the complainant bearing Tag Number 2843 died on 18.9.2013. In his observation the investigator has specifically stated that Postmortem was conducted on 18.9.2013 at 11 A.M. by the Doctor incharge which is genuine. Thus it is clearly established that the cow with Tag Number 2843 died on 18.9.2013 belonging to the complainant. Ex. C.3 insurance policy shows that cow bearing Tag Number 2843 was of colour white black and it was insured.
17. Facing this situation, the Ld. Counsel for the insurance company contended that the age of the dead cow was 4 years at the time of insurance but the evidence on the record shows that the age of cow in question was 5½ years at the time of death. This contention is untenable. As per insurance policy the age of cow bearing tag Number 2843 shown as 4 years. Policy was taken in the year 2012 and cow died between one year from insurance policy i.e. at the time of death of cow was approximately 5 years. Moreover it is a common practice to mention the age of animals approximately. By stretch of any imagination this cannot be ground to discard the overwhelming evidence on the ground in accepting the identity of the dead cow. Moreover it is not the case of the opposite parties that the dead cow was not insured with them.
18. In view of above discussion there is merit in the present complaint and  same is accepted and the complainant is entitled to Rs. 50,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 8% against the opposite parties No. 1 and 2. The complainant has been harassed by the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 unnecessarily by not issuing the genuine claim of the complainant for such a long period. Consequently the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are also burdened with Rs. 2,100/- as compensation due to deficiency in service. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room. 

Announced in open Forum                               

Dated:28.04.2015.                                           President

   Member             Member