BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.

C.C.No.270/2017.

Date of Instt.: 11.10.2017.

Date of Decision:14.06.2018.

Swaraj Singh son of Shri Sukhdev Singh, resident of village Kukdawali, Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

..Complainant.

     Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.

..Respondent/OP.

Before:                Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.

                            Sh.M.K.Khurana, Member.

Argued by:         Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv. for the complainant.

                            Sh. M.M. Grover, Adv. for the OP.

ORDER

                              The present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the Opposite Party with the averments that he is resident of village Kukdawali, District Fatehabad and is engaged in the profession of animal husbandry.

2.                          It is further submitted that he got his cow insured from OP under the live stock (cattle) insurance policy vide policy no. 261504/47/2016/1011.  The abovesaid policy was obtained by the complainant through Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Fatehabad and policy of 11 animals was taken at one time and a joint payment of Rs. 9,546 as premium was paid to the OP on 27.11.2015.  The cow in question was given a tag bearing no. OIC214905 and the insurance was taken from 27.11.2015 to 26.11.2018.

3.                It is further submitted that on 8.2.2017, the cow in question fell ill and on 9.2.2017 the cow was taken to Government Cattle Hospital, Kukdawali for treatment.  The cow was medically examined by the concerned Veterinary Surgeon but during the course of treatment the cow in question died on 19.2.2017.  The post-mortem of the body of the dead cow was conducted on 20.2.2017 vide no. 34331.  It is further submitted that the cow in question was medically examined and given treatment by veterinary surgeon Parkash Chander on 9.2.2017, 11.2.2017, 12.2.2017 and on 15.2.2017.  It is further submitted that on 28.2.2017, the Veterinary Surgeon posted in Veterinary Hosptial, Kukdawali evaluated the value of the dead cow as Rs. 40,000/-.  Thereafter, the complainant approached to OP a number of times for making payment of the insurance claim and all the documents as desired by the OP were provided by the complainant.  However, on 25.7.2017 the OP wrote a letter to the complainant for depositing all the documents regarding the insurance claim within 15 days, otherwise his claim will be deemed to be as “No Claim”.  Thereafter, the complainant visited the office of OP again and again but on 28.9.2017, he was informed by the representative of the OP that his claim has been declared as “No Claim”.  However, copy of the repudiation order was not provided to him by the OP.

4.                           It is further submitted that the abovesaid act on the part of OP in repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant amounts to deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of OP in rendering service to him.  The complainant has further prayed that the OP may be directed for making a payment of Rs. 40,000/- as insurance claim to the complainant along-with a compensation of Rs. 10,000/-.  Hence, the present complaint.

5.                 On being served, the OP appeared through its counsel and resisted the complaint by filing a written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, concealment of true and correct facts, gross abuse of process of law and locus standi etc., have been raised.

6.                In reply on merits, it is admitted that the insurance of the cattle in question was issued by the OP.  It is further submitted that the claim of the complainant is under consideration and the complainant has not submitted requisite documents and also has not fulfilled all the formalities and has approached this Forum directly.  The claim of the complainant has not been repudiated till date and the same is under consideration.  Therefore, the present complaint is premature and the same is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.  It is further submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of OP in rendering service to the complainant and the complainant is not entitled for getting any amount of compensation.  It is further prayed that the present complaint is devoid of any merits and as such the same is liable to be dismissed.

7.                The learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant as Exhibit CW1/A and the documents as Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-7 and closed the evidence of the complainant.  One Shri Jasbir Singh son of Sukhdev Singh also tendered an affidavit as Exhibit CW2/A in support of the case of the complainant.  On the other hand, learned counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Rohtash Ranga, Manager as Exhibit OPW1/A along-with documents as Exhibit R-1 to Exhibit R-14 and the documents as Annexure R-1 and Annexure R-2 and closed the evidence of the OP.

8.                We have duly considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire material placed on record. It is not disputed that the insurance of the cattle (Cow) in question was obtained by the complainant from the OP and a premium for obtaining the above said policy was paid by the complainant on 27.11.2015. It is also not disputed that tag bearing No.OIC/214905 was issued to the insured animals and validity of insurance was from 27.11.2015 to 26.11.2018. It is also not disputed that the insured cow had died on 09.02.2017 i.e. during the subsistence of the insurance policy. The same is also evident from the post mortem report dated 20.02.2017 (Annexure C-7).  From perusal of Annexure C-7, it is revealed that the tag number of the deceased cow was OIC/214905 and the said cow had died due to traumatic reticulitis. It is also evident from Annexure C-7 that the complainant had given intimation to the OP regarding the death of the insured cow on 20.02.2017. From the above facts, it is established beyond any doubt that the insured cow had died during the subsistence of insurance policy. The insurance claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OP vide repudiation letter dated 25.07.2017 (Annexure C-2) on the ground of insurable interest and treated the claim as “No Claim”. Vide Annexure C-2 the OP have also given one more opportunity to the complainant to defend his claim and he has been asked to submit documents in support of his claim within 15 days and the receipt of the Annexure C-2 otherwise his claim will be treated as “no claim”. However as per the written statement filed by the OP it is the case of the OP that the claim of the complainant is under consideration and the OP has not repudiated the claim of the complainant till now. Therefore the present complaint of the complainant is pre-mature as such there is no deficiency on the part of Op. However in the affidavit filed by the Manager of OP, it is submitted by the OP that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated as the requisite documents were not submitted by the complainant for settlement of the claim. In affidavit filed by the Manager the OP has also taken plea that the complainant had insured 6 animals at one time whereas as per policy of the Government in this regard only 5 animals per household can be insured.

9.                After considering the rival contentions of both the parties and  also going through the material placed on record, we are of the opinion that the contention of the OP is without any subsistence and the same is not tenable. In the written statement filed by the OP, it is the main plea of the OP that till date the matter is under consideration with the OP and no decision has been taken by the OP regarding the insurance claim. However a perusal of affidavit filed by the Manager and the letter dated 25.07.2017 Annexure C-2, it is revealed that the insurance claim of the complainant has been repudiated. So in its pleadings the OP has taken contrary/ different pleas. Otherwise also from the documents placed on record, the complainant has been able to prove that the insured animal had died during the subsistence of the insurance policy and as such he is entitled for insurance claim. Therefore we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has been able to prove deficiency on the part of OP in rendering service to him.

10.               The present complaint is accordingly allowed and the Op is directed for making a payment of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand only) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 7% from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization. The OP is further directed for making a payment of Rs.5000/- (Rs.Five Thousand only) as compensation and litigation charges to the complainant. The present order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of the copy of the present order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM.                                                           

                                                                (Raghbir Singh)

  President

                              (M.K.Khurana)           District Consumer Disputes                      

                Member                   Redressal Fourm,Fatehabad