Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Room No. 208 2^nd Floor, District Administrative Complex, Tarn Taran

Consumer Complaint No  : 16 of 2017

Date of Institution                      : 03.04.2017

Date of Decision               : 04.04.2019

Rupinder Singh son of Kartar Singh resident of village Mari Samra, P.O. Bhikhiwind, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran.

                                                ...Complainant

Versus

1. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Branch Near Satkar Palace, Amritsar Road, Tarn Taran Tehsil and District Tarn Taran,
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through its branch Manager, branch Loh Bajar, Mandi Gobindgarh
3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through its Head, Head office A-25/27 Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.

…Opposite Parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum:               Sh. Charanjit Singh, President

Smt. Jaswinder Kaur, Member

                             Sh. Jatinder Singh Pannu, Member

For Complainant                     Sh. M.P. Arora Advocate

For Opposite Parties               Sh. D.K. Kondura Advocate

ORDERS:

Charanjit Singh, President;

1        The complainant Rupinder Singh has filed the present complaint under Section  12 and 13 by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act (herein after called as 'the Act') against Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Branch Near Satkar Palace, Amritsar Road, Tarn Taran Tehsil and District Tarn Taran and others (Opposite Parties) on the allegations of deficiency in service and negligence in service on the part of opposite parties with prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay sum insured i.e. Rs. 50,000/- and the opposite parties and also prayed Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 12,000/- as litigation expenses.

2        The case of the complainant in brief is that he is resident of village Mari Samra, P.O. Bhikhiwind, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran. The complainant is doing the business of milk vendor and has purchased some cows after availing loan from PAD Bank, Bhikhiwind.  The opposite parties- Oriental Insurance Company Limited is dealing in the insurance Sector and the complainant got insured his five cows from the opposite parties by paying a premium of Rs. 20,250/- for sum insured of Rs. 50,000/- for each cow. After receiving the premium for the insurance of all the five cows, the opposite parties issued insurance cover note to the complainant for the period from 23.10.2014 to 22.10.2017. The company has also issued and insurance cover note to the complainant and upon that the tag number for the each cow was given for the purposes of distinction & identification between five cows and these tag Numbers  are 912223, 911063, 911025, 098104/489814 and officials of the company inserted the tag inside the skin of the each cow by their own. On the Insurance cover note, the specific features of each of the cow alongwith their tag number clearly mentioned by the company.  On 2.5.2015 at about 2.00 P.M, one of the insured cow having tag No.098104/489814 died and the complainant immediately intimated its death to the opposite parties and the opposite parties sent its agent/surveyor alongwith senior veterinary officer namely doctor Ramesh Chhabra at about 6.00 PM on the same day. The agent/surveyor conducted the inspection and afterwards, the doctor had conducted the post mortem of the dead cow and the photographs of the dead cow were also taken by them. The agent/ surveyor and doctor have taken the tag of the cow in their possession for submitting the same to the company and had assured the complainant that the company will release the claim of the dead cow, which was insured for Rs.50,000/- vide the present insurance policy. The complainant had waited for some days but the opposite parties had not released the claim and the complainant had approached many times to opposite parties to inquire about the status of the claim and had requested the opposite parties to release the insurance claim of the dead animal as early as possible but all in vain. On 10.8.2016, the complainant received a correspondence from the company vide which the company demanded a discharge voucher signed and stamped by the bank, in which the complainant was having bank account. But on the very next day, the complainant got very much astonished and embarrassed when he received another letter dated 11.08.2016 from the opposite party, wherein it was informed to him that his insurance claim for the dead cow has been closed due to no tag no claim condition. It is pertinent to mention here that tag Number 098104/489814 of the dead cow was clearly mentioned upon the post mortem report, which clearly established that the doctor of the opposite parties have conducted the post mortem after establishing the identity of the dead cow. The tag of the dead cow was taken in its possession by the agent/surveyor of the company after removing the same out of the skin of the cow. The complainant has requested the opposite parties to review the insurance claim of the dead cow but all in vain and the opposite parties had not paid any heed towards the genuine requests of the complainant. Feeling dissatisfied by the act and conduct of the opposite parties, the complainant perforce has filed this complaint against the opposite parties.

3        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties and opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint on the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law. The complainant has come to the Forum with unclean hands and has suppressed material facts from this Forum. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of concealment of the material facts from this Forum. The complainant has got no cause of action/ locus standi to file the present complaint against the opposite party. The complainant has got no right, title or interest in respect of claims of cows as alleged by him. The claim of the claimants is rightly denied by the Insurance Company on the ground of No Tag No Claim because No Tag has been submitted by the complainant to the opposite parties No. 1, 2. On merits,  it was pleaded that the complainant has not made the PAD Bhikhiwind as a party in the present case.  The claim of the dead cow is rightly rejected by the by the Insurance Company on the ground of  No Tag No Claim and all the other allegations in the complaint have been denied by the opposite parties and prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

4        Sufficient opportunities were granted to the parties to lead evidence in order to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1 alongwith documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-11 and closed the evidence. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, Ld. counsel for the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. R.K. Sharma Ex. OPs/1 alongwith documents Ex. OPs/2, Ex. OPs/3  and closed the evidence.

5        We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and opposite parties and have gone through the evidence and documents placed on the file by the parties.

6        Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant is resident of village Mari Samra, P.O. Bhikhiwind, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran and is doing the business of milk vendor and has purchased some cows after availing loan from PAD Bank, Bhikhiwind.  The opposite parties- Oriental Insurance Company Limited is dealing in the insurance Policies and the complainant got insured his five cows from the opposite parties by paying a premium of Rs. 20,250/- for sum insured of Rs. 50,000/- for each cow. After receiving the premium for the insurance of all the five cows, the opposite parties issued insurance cover note to the complainant for the period from 23.10.2014 to 22.10.2017 and policy schedule is Ex.C-4. The company has also issued and insurance cover note to the complainant and upon that the tag number for the each cow was given for the purposes of distinction & identification between five cows and these tag Numbers are 912223, 911063, 911025, 098104/489814 and officials of the company inserted the tag inside the skin of the each cow by their own. On the Insurance cover note, the specific features of each of the cow alongwith their tag number clearly mentioned by the company.  On 2.5.2015 at about 2.00 P.M, one of the insured cow having tag No.098104/489814 died and the complainant immediately intimated its death to the opposite partiesy and the opposite partiesy sent its agent/surveyor alongwith senior veterinary officer namely doctor Ramesh Chhabra at about at about 6.00 PM on the same day. The agent/surveyor conducted the inspection and afterwards, the doctor had conducted the post mortem of the dead cow which is Ex. C-7 and the photographs of the dead cow were also taken by them. The agent/ surveyor and doctor have taken the tag of the cow in their possession for submitting the same to the company and had assured the complainant that the company will release the claim of the dead cow, which was insured for Rs.50,000/- vide the present insurance policy. The complainant had waited for some days but the opposite parties had not released the claim and the complainant had approached many times to opposite parties to inquire about the status of the claim and had requested the opposite parties to release the insurance claim of the dead cow as early as possible but all in vain. On 10.8.2016, the complainant received a correspondence from the company vide which the company demanded a discharge voucher signed and stamped by the bank, in which the complainant was having bank account which is ex. C-11. But on the very next day, the complainant got very much astonished and embarrassed when he received another letter dated 11.08.2016 Ex. C-9 from the opposite party, wherein it was informed to him that his insurance claim for the dead cow has been closed due to no tag no claim condition. Tag Number 098104/489814 of the dead cow was clearly mentioned upon the post mortem report Ex. C-7.  He further contended that the tag of the dead cow was taken in its possession by the agent/surveyor of the company after removing the same out of the skin of the cow. The complainant has requested the opposite parties to review the insurance claim of the dead cow but the opposite parties had not paid heed towards the genuine requests of the complainant. Ld. counsel for the complainant  prayed that the present complaint may be allowed as prayed for in the complaint.

7        Ld. counsel for the Opposite Parties contended that the present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law. The complainant has come to the Forum with unclean hands and has suppressed material facts from this Forum. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of concealment of the material facts from this Forum. The complainant has got no cause of action/ locus standi to file the present complaint against the opposite party. The complainant has got no right, title or interest in respect of claims of cows as alleged by the complainant. The claim of the claimants is rightly denied by the Insurance Company on the ground of No Tag No Claim because No Tag has been submitted by the complainant to the opposite parties No. 1, 2. The opposite parties have denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

8        In the present case, insurance of the cow is not disputed. Death of the cow is also not disputed between the parties. The complainant has proved on record Policy schedule Ex. C-4 in which the period of insurance is written from 23.10.2014 to 22.10.2017 and in Ex. C-4, it is mention regarding the cow which is insured with the opposite parties vide Tag Nos. 912223, 911063, 911025, 098104/489814. The complainant has also proved on record schedule of premium of Rs. 20,250/- vide Ex. C-5.  The opposite parties have repudiated the claim of the complainant on the sole ground ‘NO TAG NO CLAIM’. The stand of the opposite parties for rejecting the claim is that the complainant has not submitted the Tag of the insured cow to the opposite party. But the complainant has placed on record post mortem report of the dead cow in the post mortem report there is clearly written that Chip No. 98104/489814 . It is also mention in the post mortem report that the cow died on 2.5.2015. In this way the complainant has proved on record that cow having chip No. 98104/489814 died on 2.5.2015 i.e. during the insured period of the cow.  As such, from record placed on record , it is established that the cow having chip No. 98104/489814 died on 2.5.2015 and the opposite parties have wrongly rejected the claim of the complai9nant ‘NO TAG NO CLAIM’. The complainant has also produced on record one letter dated 10.8.2016 Ex. C-8 in which the opposite parties is requesting the complainant to provide the ‘D/V’ (Discharge Voucher) duly signed and stamped by the Bank to process the claim. The complainant has also placed on record Discharge Voucher Ex. C-11 sent by the opposite parties to the complainant. The complainant has also placed on record another letter dated 11.8.2016 Ex. C-9 issued by the opposite parties i.e. on the very next day of letter Ex. C-8 vide which the opposite parties have repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground of ‘NO TAG NO CLAIM’. It all creates a doubt in the case of opposite party. One day prior the opposite parties sent letter Ex. C-8 for processing the claim and on the very next day vide letter Ex. C-9 the opposite parties have repudiated the claim of the opposite party. It is generally seen that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. In similar set of facts the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt.Usha Yadav & Others 2008(3) RCR (Civil) Page 111 went on to hold as under:-

“It seams that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. All conditions which generally are hidden, need to be simplified so that these are easily understood by a person at the time of buying any policy. The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreement, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy. Insurance Company also directed to pay costs of Rs.5000/- for luxury litigation, being rich.”

Therefore, repudiation of the claim of the complainant in such an event is not justified at all.

9        In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite Parties are directed to make the payment of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. fifty thousand only) i.e. sum insured to the complainant. Complainant is also entitled to Rs.5,000/-( Rs. Five Thousand only) as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses. Opposite parties is directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the awarded amount, from the date of complaint till its realisation.  Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

(Charanjit Singh)

     (J.S. Pannu)     President        (Jaswinder Kaur)

        Member                                     Member