Punjab

Sangrur

CC/343/2016

Charanveer Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rajinder Goyal

29 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  343

                                                Instituted on:    01.04.2016

                                                Decided on:       29.11.2016

 

Charanveer Singh son of Ranbir Singh R/o Near Satsung Bhawan, Malerkotla Bye-pass Road, Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Extension Counter, Above OBC Bank, Peeran Wala Gate, Sunam, District Sangrur, through its Branch Manager.

2.             The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regd. And Head Office, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi through its GM/MD.

3.             Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Amit Goyal, Adv.

For OP No.1&2         :       Shri Bhushan Garg, Adv.

For OP No.3             :       Shri Sumesh Goyal, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Charanveer Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OPs by getting insured his 20 cows from OP number 1 vide policy number 233592/47/2014/59 for Rs.50,000/- each for the period from 22.3.2014 to 21.3.2017. It is further averred that at the time of issuance of insurance cover, OPs got all the cows examined from Dr. Ram Kumar, who also issued the health certificate.

 

2.             Further case of the complainant that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the cow mentioned at serial number 1 having chip number A8BA910000000001 died on 20.3.2015 due to milk fever and downers cow, syndrome and intimation regarding the same was immediately given to the complainant by the Ops and post-mortem of cow was also performed by Dr. Ram Kumar on 20.3.2015.  It is further mentioned in the complaint that thereafter the complainant submitted all the documents to the Ops.  The complainant approached the Ops so many times, but the claim was not paid despite legal notice dated 8.3.2016 served upon the OPs. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/-  along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of death of the cow i.e. 20.3.2015 till realisation and further complainant has claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply filed by the OPs number 1 and 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complaint is not maintainable.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant got insured his cows in question. It is being insured after providing health certificate, valuation certificate, identification proof like chip number bread, colour etc. It is further submitted that the complainant got insured his 20 cows from OP number 1 vide insurance policy in question for the period from 22.3.2014 to 21.3.2017 subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. 

 

4.             It is further averred that after receipt of the intimation from the complainant, the Ops immediately appointed Shri Ankur Jindal, who visited the spot and examined the dead cow and checked the microchip inserted in the dead cow and the same was taken by him in the presence of the insured and found the number of microchip as A8BA910000000001, whereas as per the policy, the microchip number was A88A91000000001.  Further it is stated that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OPs vide letter number 12.1.2016 on the ground that micro chip number is different.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

5.             In reply filed by OP number 3, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint, that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the OPs into unwanted litigation.  On merits, it is submitted that on the request of the complainant, an amount of Rs.85,214/- was transferred in the account of the OPs number 1 and 2.  However, the other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-3 postal receipt, Ex.C-4 copy of health certificate, Ex.C-5 copy of policy schedule, Ex.C-6 copy of claim intimation with document, Ex.C-7 copy of PMR, Ex.C-8 copy of certificate, Ex.C-9 copy of cancelled cheque, Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-13 copies of photographs and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 and 2 has produced Ex.OP1&2/1 affidavit, Ex.OP1&2/2 copy of chip reading, Ex.OP1&2/3 copy of repudiation letter dated 12.1.2016, Ex.OP1&2/4 copy of policy, Ex.OP1&2/5 copy of terms and conditions, Ex.OP1&2/6 copy of health certificate, Ex.Op1&2/7 copy of investigation report, Ex.OP1&2/8 copy of statement and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.OP3/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

7.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

8.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his 20 cows in question from OPs number 1 and 2  by paying the requisite premium for the period from 22.3.2014 to 21.3.2017 and the OP number 1 issued policy bearing number 233592/47/2014/59, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-5.  It is further not in dispute between the parties that the cow of the complainant died on 20.03.2015 during the subsistence of the insurance policy.  But, in the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that the OPs have repudiated the claim of the insured cow on the ground that the chip found from the body of the dead cow was having different number i.e. A8BA910000000001, whereas as per the policy, the microchip number was A88A91000000001.  We have also perused the copy of the animal health certificate, Ex.C-4, wherein the detail of the insured cows have been given including the age, number of lactation, date of calving, milk/day, colour and identification marks etc. 

 

9.             After careful perusal of the whole of the record as well as the documents, we find that the OPs have repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the chip found from the body of the cow was having different number and when we perused both the chip numbers, then we found that the chip numbers are somewhat similar and that there is only difference of second digit ‘8’  and ‘B’ in both the microchips i.e. one shown inserted in the cow and found in the dead cow.  In the circumstances, we feel that there was some clerical mistake while writing the microchip number in the health certificate, Ex.C-4.  Further there is nothing on record produced by the OPs that the chip number A8BA910000000001 found from the body of the dead cow was not belonging to the OPs number 1 and 2.  It is worth mentioning here that  the other particulars of the insured cow are matching with the dead cow i.e. ‘colour and markings – black and white spots –star – legs –belly and tail white’.  In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that was some clerical mistake in writing the second digit of the microchip number and on this ground the genuine claim of the complainant cannot be thrown away.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the OPs number 1 and 2 are deficient in service by repudiating the rightful claim of the complainant.

 

10.           The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.

 

11.           In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs number 1 and 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- being the insurance claim on account of death of the insured cow in question along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 01.04.2016 till realisation.  OPs number 1 and 2 are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension and harassment and litigation expenses.

 

12.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                November 29, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member