DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.256 of 2016

                                                 Date of institution:  05.05.2016                                                     Date of decision   :  01.03.2018

Sukhwinder Singh son of Harnek Singh, village Nagla, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District Mohali.

…….Complainant

Vs

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., SCF No.6, Chajumajra Road, Opp. Sunny Enclave, Kharar, District Mohali 140301 through its Manager.

                                                                ……..Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:     Shri Deep Singh, counsel for the complainant.

                Shri Ram Avtar, counsel for the OP.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

               Complainant after getting loan from Oriental Bank of Commerce, Dhakoli purchased cows, which were insured with OP vide policy No.231495/47/2015/27 with validity from 06.03.2015 to 05.03.2018. All these cows were insured for a sum of Rs.60,000/- each by paying premium of Rs.2,880/- per cow. All the cows were healthy and that is why insurance policy was issued. Four of these cows expired and matter was reported to OP, who after investigation assured for disbursement of the insurance amount through NEFT to bank account of complainant. Complainant received amounts of Rs.50,000/-; Rs.60,000/-; Rs.42,000/- and Rs.44,000/- on 08.09.2015; 08.09.2015; 11.09.2015 and 15.09.2015 through NEFT in his account from OP. Complainant raised protest as to why Rs.44,000/- has been paid less for three cows but OP failed to offer any plausible explanation and as such after serving legal notice dated 02.12.2015 through registered post, this complaint filed by pleading deficiency in service on part of OP and for claiming balance amount of Rs.44,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 15.09.2015 till payment. Compensation for providing deficient service of Rs.20,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- more claimed.

2.             In reply submitted by OP, it is pleaded inter alia as if the complaint has become infructuous due to making of payment of due claim amount to complainant after receipt of spot verification and investigation report of Dr. Y.P.C. Mehta, Retd. Joint Director and that complainant has no cause of action because the complaint is false, vexatious and frivolous. Allegation of deficiency in service also denied but by claiming that claim of complainant was settled strictly as per the market value of the cows, that had expired due to protozoan infection leading to anaemia.  Market value was assessed on the basis of general health condition of the dead cows. Admittedly policy in question was issued with above referred validity period for covering risk of 10 Cross Bred Milch Cows. Each and every other allegation of the complaint denied.

3.             Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to C-5 and thereafter his counsel closed evidence. On the other hand counsel for OP tendered affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 of Shri Neeru Sood, Deputy Manager alongwith investigation reports Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-4 and terms and conditions of the policy Ex.OP-5 and thereafter closed evidence. 

4.             Written arguments submitted by the parties. Oral arguments of counsel for parties heard and records gone through.

5.             Undisputed facts in this case are that 10 cows of different ages were got insured by complainant with OP by paying premium on insured sum of Rs.60,000/- per cow. Same is reflected by the policy schedule Ex.C-1= Ex.OP-5 produced by both the parties. As the sum insured per cow was Rs.60,000/- and as such it is vehemently contended by counsel for complainant that less amount paid with respect to three cows because amounts of Rs.42,000/-; Rs.44,000/- and Rs.50,000/- were paid in respect of three dead insured cows. However, contract of insurance is always governed by the terms and conditions of the insurance. After going through market agreement on cattle insurance, which is annexed with policy schedule Ex.OP-5, it is made out that value of the insured cows will be based on the market value as on date and place. That market value to be decided on the basis of the recommendations of the local veterinary surgeon. This is reflected in Clause 3 of the above referred terms and conditions, which came in force w.e.f. 01.10.1997 onwards. As per Clause 4 of these terms and conditions, the sum insured not to exceed the market value. Further as per Clause 13 of these terms and conditions, market value of the animal immediately prior to death as certified by veterinary surgeon or sum insured, whichever is less alone is indemnifiable. Even care has to be taken to assess the value of dry animals as per this indemnity Clause No.13. So by having joint reading of these Clauses 3, 4 and 13, it is made out that insurance claim in the event of death of the insured cow payable on the basis of market value to be determined by the veterinary surgeon.

6.             OP in this case deputed Dr. Y.P.C. Mehta, Retd. Joint Director for determining the market value of the insured cows, that expired. Reports Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-4 are detailed one and they takes into consideration age of the cows with the capacity of giving milk, for purpose of assessing the market value prior to the illness of each of the dead insured cows. Market value of the cows got determined by the OP before deciding the payable insurance claim amount. As the payable insurance claim amount cannot be in excess of the market value, as per the above referred Clauses 3, 4 and 13 of the terms and conditions of the policy and as such the OP did the right thing by distributing the amount of the dead insured animals at the rate of market value assessed by the veterinary surgeon. So claim is paid virtually as per terms and conditions of insurance policy and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Rather OP rendered best service by paying the due amounts as per terms and conditions of the policy and as such complaint being misconceived merits dismissal.

7.             As a sequel of above discussion, complaint dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs.  

                Since there is shortage of postal stamps in this Forum, therefore, the parties through their counsel are directed to receive free certified copy of the order by hand and it will be the responsibility of the learned counsel for the parties to inform them accordingly.  This direction issued by following the principle laid down by Hon’ble  Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.956 of 2017 titled as Partap Rai Sharma Vs. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA), decided on 25.01.2018. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

March 01, 2018.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

                                                                   (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)                                                                 Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member