DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ROPAR

                                                Consumer Complaint No.62 of 2020

                                                Date of institution: 07.10.2020

                                                Date of Decision: 19.02.2021

Raj Pal son of Soma resident of Village Khadd, Rajgiri, PO Dhamana, District Rupnagar  

…….Complainant

Versus

1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager at Nangal Chowk, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, registered office at Oriental House A-25-27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002
3. The Ropar Central Cooperative Bank Limited Branch Takhatgarh, District Rupnagar through its Branch Manager  

                                                      ……..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:   Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.

                        Capt. Yuvinder Singh Matta, Member

Present: Sh. Jarnail Singh, Adv. counsel for complainant

     Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh, Adv. counsel for O.Ps. No.1 & 2

                     O.P. No.3 ex-parte.

Order dictated by :-  Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President and

Capt. Yuvinder Singh Matta, Member

Order

The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as ‘OPs for short) on the ground that that in the month of February 2017, CC visited the OP3 to seek dairy loan for the purchase of eight cows, which was sanctioned to the tune of 4,00,000/ on 6.3.2017. Immediately, after obtaining the loan, CC had purchased the cattles then submitted the health report of the cattles with the OP No.3. Accordingly, he could purchase eight cows and also procured the health report of the eights cows from the Veterinary Doctor on 18.3.2017 and submitted the same with the OP3. On the advise of the OP3, the CC had to subscribed an insurance policy for his all eight cows since it was mandatory, as per the rules of the OP3 and for that purpose, he paid Rs.28,151/- as insurance premium to the OP3 in cash. It is further averred that on 06.04.2017 an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and again on 24.4.2017 another amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and on 12.5.2017 an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by the OP3 to the CC. The policy bearing No.231402/47/2018/204 dated 29.7.2018 was allotted to the CC and the same was valid from 30.06.2017 to 29.06.2020. The CC was also told that within a few days the representative of the OPs No.1 & 2 will reach the house of the CC for the fixation of tag in the ears of the cows. But despite visit of the complainant in the office of OPs No.1& 2 with the request to affix the tag on the cows but nothing was done by the OPs. It is further averred that on 1.3.2020 unfortunately one cow of the CC died and on the very next day on 02.03.2020, the CC gave information to the Ops regarding the death of the cow. On the advise of the OPs, the post mortem of the cow was also done by the Veterinary Doctor in Civil Hospital, Madhopur Abiana. The post mortem Report No.24 is of dated 2.3.2020. Even after submission of the post mortem report, the relevant record with the OP3 was submitted by the CC to seek the claim of the cow, but the OP3 did not bother and kept on prolonging the matter on one pretext or the other. CC also gave an application with OP1 to release the claim amount of the cow but every time his request fell on deaf ears. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of Ops, the CC has sought the following relief:-

1. That the O.Ps. be directed to release the insured amount of Rs.50,000/- of the cow along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of death of cow. Further the CC has sought Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

The complaint of the CC is singed and also verified.

2. The O.Ps. No.1 & 2 in reply have raised a number of objections on the ground of maintainability etc. On merits, it is found that the CC has put the claim procedure of the company in its reply, wherein, it is mentioned that immediately intimation to the company has to be given within seven days and further in the reply, the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, is mentioned. Again in the reply, it is mentioned where there is no tag then there is no claim. In the remaining paras the OPs No.1& 2 have simply denied the allegations of the CC and further in the concluding para has sought the dismissal of the complaint. No affidavit is filed in support of the version of O.Ps. No.1 & 2. Surprisingly, the name of the person not mentioned, who has signed the version on behalf of the insurance company. Even the version is not verified and is not in consonance with rules and law.  On the other hand, the OP No.3 has chosen to remain exparte vide order dated 04.12.2020
3. The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops. No.1 & 2 has tendered copy of insurance policy schedule Ex.OP1 and market Agreement on cattle insurance Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence.  
4. We have heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the file, carefully and minutely.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that the learned counsel for the Ops No.1 & 2 during the arguments has admitted the subscription of the insurance policy by the CC. He has admitted that the cow of the CC was insured for an amount of Rs.50,000/- by his company i.e. Ops. No.1 & 2. In its reply, the O.P. No.2 has simply denied the claim on the ground that there was no tag on the cow when the cow was found dead. It is important to mention here that the identification of the cow is not in dispute. No such dispute is being raised by the insurance company that this was not the actual cow which was insured by their company, which died on 01.03.2020. We have perused the version filed by the O.Ps. no.1 & 2, minutely. There is only a plan denial of the allegations of the CC against O.Ps. No.1 & 2. As per the condition No.11 of the claim procedure mentioned in the reply, it is writ-large that the CC had the option to inform the OPs. No.1 & 2 within seven days. It is admitted by the learned Advocate that on the very next day, the CC could inform the O.Ps. No.1 &2 regarding the death of the cow, which was insured by them. Moreover, there is nothing on record that the CC had no cooperated with the OPs. No.1 & 2. Rather, it is proved on file that CC even got the post mortem of the cow conducted from the Veterinary Doctor and supplied all the requisite documents. CC further in support of his case has tendered into evidence various documents. Ex.C2 proves that the CC took loan for keeping eight cows to start his business. It is also on the file that the CC had been paying the bank installments to the OP No.3 regularly. Even the description of the cow is clearly shown in the post mortem report as black and white. The cost of the cow is also mentioned in the post mortem report approximately Rs.50/60,000/-.   
6. The CC has further in support of his case, has submitted various health certificates of the cow showing that the cow of the CC at the time of subscribing the insurance policy was having good health. Moreover, no such objection has raised by the O.Ps. regarding the health of the cow. Further the CC submitted Ex.C8 an application to the O.Ps. to settle his claim. Ex.C9 are the postal receipts.
7. In view of our above discussion, we feel, that the O.Ps. had no cogent, reliable or any trustworthy reason to decline or delay the claim of the poor claimants who is running the small business of dairy farming. This denial of O.Ps. show the high headedness and the callus attitude of the insurance company, who are bent upon to destroy these poor farmers. There is no evidence on the part of the O.Ps. that why the genuine claim of the CC was not decided within time. We have seen in a number of cases that the insurance companies have made a habit not to decide the claim of the poor peoples and in every 3/4 matter drags the poor claimants to unwanted litigation. We further feel that such attitude of the companies should be dealt with firm hand. Accordingly, we allow the present complaint and ordered the O.Ps. to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/-  along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of death of the cow to the claimant within thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. We further order that the O.Ps. to pay a consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant. We further order that since it is a public money, the Divisional Manager of the OP No.3 will conduct an enquiry and will ensure that the erring official, who is responsible for not settling the claim of the complainant, immediately will pay Rs.15,000/- from his salary. He will intimate this Commission, accordingly. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room.
8.  

February 19, 2021

                                                        (Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)

                                                        President

(Capt. Y.S. Matta)

Member