Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/17/60

Parveen Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Jarnail Singh, Adv

26 Apr 2018

ORDER

THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. :  60 of 15.09.2017

                                 Date of decision                    :      26.4.2018

 

Parveen Kaur wife of Sh. Jarnail Singh, resident of Village Khad Rajgiri (Keembass) PO Dhamana Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar, through her power of attorney Sh. Jarnail Singh, son of Sh. Bishan Dass, resident of Village Khad Rajgiri (Keembass) PO Dhamana Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar. 

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through its branch manager at Nangal Chowk, Rupnagar Tehsil & District Rupnagar. 

2. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Registered office at Oriental House A 25/27 Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002  

3. State Bank of India Branch Bajrur, District Rupnagar through its Branch Manager  

                                                                         ....Opposite Parties

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Advocate, counsel for complainant 

 Sh. Ankur Verma, Adv. counsel for O.Ps. No.1 & 2

          Sh. Daljeet Singh, Adv. counsel for O.P. No.3 

 

                                           ORDER

 

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

 

1.         Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to release the insurance claim of the cow for the sum of Rs.50,000/- along with interest 18% per annum from the death of cow; to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation;  along with Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.         Brief facts made out from the complaint are that in the Month of March, wife of the complainant visited to the State Bank of India branch Bajrur to get loan and applied for the same for diary farming. The employee of the bank said that first of all, complainant should purchased the cattle and then gave the health report of the purchase cattle’s then she can apply for the dairy loan. She purchased the two cows and then obtained health report from veterinary doctor on 17.3.2017 and also completing all the formalities and furnished all the documents as well as documents from whom she purchased the cows as per requirement of the bank and then submitted all the documents with the bank. After verifying the documents, the bank sanctioned the loan amount of Rs.98,000/-. On the same day the bank officials also told her have to get the insurance of the cows purchased by her. It is further stated that then the bank officials sanctioned the loan and after deducting the insurance amount of Rs.7038/- then transferred the rest of the amount in the account of the person from which she purchased the cows. Her cows were insured with the O.Ps. through bank and insurance policy was supplied to her on 28.3.2017. The insurance policy was from 28.3.2017 to 27.3.2020. She approached and requested the O.P. No.1 to affixed the tag in the ears of the cows but the same were not tagged till date. On 3.8.2017, her one cow has died. The information regarding the death of the cow was also given to the O.ps. The post mortem of the cow was also conducted and thereafter the O.p. No.1 directed her to furnished some documents to get the insurance claim of the cow and as per the instructions of the employee of insurance company all formalities were completed by her. The copy of the death report, photographs and post mortem report are enclosed with the insurance claim. Then officials of the O.P. No.1 said to her to visit again after few days to receive the insurance claim of the cow. After a week the officials of the O.P. No.1 said to her that insurance is of buffalos not the cows. So they unable to issue the claim of the claimant. Hence, this complaint. 

 3.   On notice, O.Ps. No.1 & 2 appears through counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering O.Ps. ; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint. On merits, it is stated that as per the policy bearing No.231402/47/2017/630 for the period from 28.3.2017 to 27.3.2020. Two buffaloes of Smt. Parveen Kumari wife of Jarnail Singh were insured by the answering O.ps. through the agent of sh. Jaspal Singh Pinghlia. It is wrong that the cows of Smt. Parveen Kaur were insured where as the complaint is relating to the death of cows which were not insured by the company. Moreover, the answering O.Ps. on the intimation has appointed an investigator for spot verification of the cattle claim i.e. M/s Unique Associates who has submitted his report to the company on 21.8.2017 that the cow of Smt. Parveen Kaur has died, but there was neither Tag nor any chip found while post mortem was conducted of the cow and when there is no tag on the cow then there is no claim as per law.  Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made dismissal thereof. 

4.         The O.P. No.3 has filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has come to this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts from this Hon’ble Forum; that there is no deficiency in service only part of the answering O.P. On merits, it is stated that the complainant has taken the loan from the dairy business and had purchased the cows for this business. The lives was got insured by the complainant from the O.Ps. No.1 & 2, the dispute is between the complainant and O.P. no.1 & 2. The complainant had purchased the cows as per health certificate produce by the complainant and the loan was sanctioned and disbursed to the complainant on the basis of loan application and other document executed by the complainant in favour of the answering O.P. The live stock of cows was got insured by the complainant from the O.Ps. No.1 & 2 and however the premium was paid to the insured company as per direction of complainant.  Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made dismissal thereof. 

5     On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered his sworn affidavit Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C12 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.Ps. No.1 & 2  has tendered affidavit of Sh. Satinder Pal Singh, Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company, Ex.OP1 along with documents OP2 to Ex.OP12 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.3 has tendered affidavit of Branch Manager of SBI, Branch Bajrur Ex.OP3/1 along with documents Ex.OP3/2 to Ex.OP3/14 and closed the evidence.

6.    We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

7.    Complainant counsel Sh. Jarnail Singh, argued that purchase of two cows and issuance of the policy on behalf of O.Ps. No.1 & 2 admitted but repudiated the claim on the fake/false ground. Only mention in the repudiation letter that claim had been declined with reason the insured cover for two buffaloes not for cows. Hence, the present complaint. Learned counsel prayed that if the O.Ps. (insurance company) while issuing policy has errorly mentioned buffaloes instead of cows then that is not fault of the complainant rather fault is on behalf of O.Ps. Learned counsel referred the documentary evidence and prayed that deficiency stand proves. Complaint be allowed against the O.Ps.(Insurance Company).

8.      Sh. Ankur Verma, counsel for the O.Ps. (Insurance Company) firstly referred reply then documentary evidence and finally referred the evidence adduced by the complainant and O.Ps., then prayed the documentary evidence proves that death the cows whereas the policy was of buffaloes. In support of the said contentions, learned counsel for relied upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, order dated 16.10.2017 passed in revision petition No.3203 of 2016 and prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.

9.    So far the point whether it is a consumer dispute and whether the complaint is maintainable that question is not much stressed by the O.Ps. because complainant is resident of District Rupnagar and O.Ps. has the office in this District.  It is the pleaded claim of complainant that through O.P. No.3 the purchased cows were insured and after purchase complainant has been depositing the loan installment but unfortunately one of the cow died on 3.8.2017and the claim was lodged. O.P. repudiated the claim i.e. not denied in reply. So it is a consumer dispute and complaint is maintainable.

10.     Coming to the documentary evidence, firstly while appreciating complainant evidence he has tendered a sworn affidavit i.e. Ex.C1 and has reiterated the entire complaint version. Then relied upon Ex.C2 letter issued by the SBI dated 5.8.2017 and its relevant portion reproduced:-

            Livestock Claim by Parveen Kumari

            We are forwarding herewith copy of insurance paper as well as health certificate of cattle, owned by Mrs. Parveen Kumari, who had availed Dairy Loan A/C 65281697754 of Rs.98,800.00 on 21.3.2017 from our Branch.  

Ex.C3 & Ex.C4 are both the health certificates dated 17.3.2017  qua the cows.  Purchased/insured and in the said document there is detail of the policy etc.  Ex.C5 is relating to the corporate identity No.139540 of cows. Ex.C6 is the post mortem certificate and that is not denied by the O.ps. Ex.C6 & Ex.C7 & Ex.C8 are the part of the post mortem. Ex.C9 is the discharge voucher on behalf of the oriental insurance company and in the relevant column qua the animal there is specific recital specifying cow. In page No.3 of this document, the description of the dead animal is mentioned as male. Other documents are qua complainant. Then coming to the documents relied upon by the O.Ps, Ex.OP3 & Ex.OP4 speaks the death of buffaloes and as per cover note buffaloes were insured. At the same time, Ex.OP8 has placed on file by the O.Ps. that speaks the policy relating to cow. In Ex.OP12 that is Livestock (cattle) Insurance and in its column No.1 qua the dead animal mentioned buffaloes.

11.              The document relied upon by the O.Ps. while declining the claim are Ex.OP3 & Ex.OP4. Ex.OP3 dated 11.10.2017 speaks that cover note No.139540  dated 27,.3.2017 is relating to the two buffaloes in the name of Smt. Parveen Kumari wife of Jarnail Singh, resident of District Ropar. Then Ex.OP4 is also of the same day qua  cover note No.139540 and in its concluding line is mentioned as under:-

                   “The above cow is not insured under the policy”.

           As per the complainant version she insured cows whereas as per the O.P. version insured/dead animal is buffaloes.

12.              Complainant counsel in support of the document has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Uttarakhand Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission order dated 13.3.2001 passed in appeal No.1486/SC of 1992 then relied upon the law laid down by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, order dated 20.1.2015 in appeal No.1068 of 2002. At the same time to rebut the complainant version through the law O.Ps. counsel has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission dated 16.10.2017 passed in revision petition No.3203 of 2016. After going through the facts of the authority, the Forum has come to the conclusion that each case is its own different facts, but while deciding the complaint in hand, the Forum is to appreciate the evidence on file..

13.          The Forum after appreciating the rival contentions of both the counsel, pleadings and evidence has finally come to the conclusion that health certificate speaks relating to cow and post mortem also speaks the death of cow. Photographs proves that the cover note of the insurance company issued is also relating to cow. If with error in some of the document insurance company mentioned is policy No.139540 dated 27.3.2017 relating to buffaloes then its benefit can not be extended to the O.Ps. because most of the document relied upon by the complainant and issued by the O.Ps. proves that complainant got insured her cow with O.Ps and deposited the premium. But all of sudden, the cow died on 3.8.2017 and necessary report was given, post mortem was conducted and claim was lodged. O.P. (Insurance Company) repudiated the claim vide Ex.OP4 that the cow was not insured. So complainant has been able to prove deficiency on the part of the O.P. (Insurance Company) and the claim is payable of the complainant.

14.              In the light of above discussion, the complaint stand allowed with the direction of the O.P. (Insurance Company) to pay Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of death i.e. 3.8.2017 till realization with cost of Rs.5000/-.

15.       The O.P. is further directed to comply with the said order within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

16.         The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.

 

                   ANNOUNCED                                                       (KARNAL SINGH AHHI)

                   Dated .26.04.2018                                      PRESIDENT
 

 

                                                          (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                             MEMBER