Punjab

Sangrur

CC/137/2016

Narinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Sangrur Primary Co-op.Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shei R.S.Toor

27 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                    

                                                Complaint No.  137

                                                Instituted on:    13.01.2016

                                                Decided on:       27.09.2016

 

Narinder Singh s/o Harmel Singh Resident of village Kheri, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.     The Sangrur Primary Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Limited, Sangrur (P.A.D.B.) Branch, Sangrur (Near Kothi of Madanjit Singh) through its Branch Manager.

2.   The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Malerkotla through its Manager (Near Truck Union, Malerkotla near SBOP Sangrur) Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri R.S.Toor, Adv.

For OP No.1             :       Shri Sumir Fatta, Adv.

For OP NO.2             :       Shri Bhushan Garg, Adv. 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Narinder 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 took a dairy loan from OP number 1 for purchase of six cows, as such, he purchased six cows and got insured the same from OP number 2 by paying the requisite premium of Rs.22,500/- for the period from 14.5.2014 to 13.5.2017 and thereafter he got insured two remaining cows by paying the premium. The Ops inserted the microchip in the body of insured cows as token and identity of the cows. It is further averred that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, one cow of the complainant died on 6.7.2014 and as such he informed the OP number 2 and the representative of the OP number 2 visited at the house of the complainant and took the photographs of dead cow and also collected the chip #900188000025062 from the body of the carcass and the complainant submitted the claim form and other documents. It is further case of the complainant that despite visiting the OP number 2 so many times, the claim was not settled. 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 the insurance claim amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the OP into uncalled litigation, that the complainant has got no locus standi and that the complaint is false and frivolous one which should be dismissed with special costs. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant took a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the OP number 1 for purchase of six cows and after its purchase the same were got insured from OP number 2 i.e. for the period from 14.5.2014 to 13.5.2017.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP, that the complaint does not fall under the definition of consumer, that the complaint is not maintainable and that no such claim has been lodged by the complainant and that the complainant is not a consumer of the Ops. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant got insured six cows and microchips after the insurance was inserted. It is further stated that it was the basic terms and conditions of the policy that if there is no tag then there will be no claim and claim would not be admissible in the event of insured not surrendering the tag/chip in respect of the dead animal.   It has been denied that the complainant ever lodged any insurance claim of the dead cow having chip number 9001880025062 and further it is denied that the representative of the OP number 2 ever visited the house of the complainant and took photographs. As such, it is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 2.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of bill number 851, Ex.C-3 copy of spot verification, Ex.C-4 copy of insurance cover note, Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6 copies of receipts and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 affidavit, Ex.OP2/2 copy of insurance policy, Ex.OP2/3 copy of terms and conditions and closed evidence.

 

5.             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.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his cows from the OP number 2 by paying the requisite premium, as is evident from the copy of insurance cover note, Ex.C-4. 

 

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that out of the insured cows, one cow bearing chip number 900188000025062 died on 6.7.2014 due to fever, information of which was given to the OP number 2 who appointed its representative, who visited the house of the complainant and took the photographs of the dead cow and also collected the chip in question, but the claim was not settled by the OP number 2.  On the other hand, the stand of the OP number 2 is that the complainant never lodged any claim with it and further it is denied that the OP number 2 ever deputed any surveyor to visit the house of the complainant. But, we are unable to go with this contention of the OP number 2, whereas the complainant has produced on record Ex.C-3 the copy of the investigation report dated 4.8.2014, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-3 a bare perusal of it clearly shows that Dr. Ram Kumar investigator visited the house of the complainant on the instructions of OP number 2 for spot verification of death of the cow of the complainant and has clearly opined that 'As a microchip # 900188000025062 was found from the body of the carcass, the claim is genuine in my opinion.  All the animals of this farm are insured with microchips have been applied in all the animals. The microchip is attached along with".   Similarly, the complainant has produced Ex.C-2 copy of the bill of the investigator dated 4.8.2014 claiming an amount of Rs.1455/- from the OP number 2 on account of verification report as mentioned above.   We may mention that the investigator Dr. Ram Kumar is approved investigator of the Ops and the OP relies upon the report of Dr. Ram Kumar a number of times in other cases.  Further,  OP number 2 has not produced even the affidavit of Dr. Ram Kumar to falsify the report Ex.C-3 to state that the same has not been prepared by him nor the same was submitted to the OP number 2.   There is no explanation from the side of the OP number 2 that why they did not opt to produce the affidavit of Dr. Ram Kumar to rebut his report Ex.C-3 and bill Ex.C-2.  Further the OP number 2 has not even uttered a single word that the payment of bill of Rs.1455/- has not been paid by the OP number 2 to the investigator Dr. Ram Kumar.    In the circumstances of the case, we feel that the insured cow of the complainant died on 6.7.2014 and the OP number 2 accordingly appointed Dr. Ram Kumar for spot verification of the death of the cow in question. As such, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 2 by not paying the claim of the dead cow to the complainant.

 

8.             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.

 

9.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP number 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. 13.01.2016 till its realisation.   We further direct OP number 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses.

 

10.           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.

                September 21, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

 

                                                           (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                              (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member