Punjab

Sangrur

CC/125/2016

Harjinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Sunam Primary Cooperative Agriculture Development Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Ramit Pathak

21 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                              

                                                Complaint No.  125

                                                Instituted on:    12.01.2016

                                                Decided on:       21.09.2016

 

Harjinder Singh son of Shri Baghel Singh, resident of Backside 66 KV Grid Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.     The Sunam Primary Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Limited, Sunam, Distt. Sangrur through its Manager.

2.   National Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office: Pili Kothi, Thandi Sarak, Malerkotla, District Sangrur through its branch Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Ramit Pathak, Adv.

For OP No.1             :       Shri Vikrant Garg, Adv.

For OP NO.2             :       Shri Sumir Fatta, Adv. 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Harjinder 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 of Rs.4,00,000/- from OP number 1 for purchase of eight cattle, as such, he purchased eight cattle and got insured the same from OP number 2 by paying the requisite premium. The Ops issued the tags to each of the animals, out of which three were tagged as number 9094 to 9096.  It is further averred that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, one buffalo of the complainant bearing tag number 9094 died on 29.4.2015 at about 1.00 AM. As such, the information was given to OP number 1 and thereafter an officer of OP number 2, namely, Amrik Singh visited the premises of the complainant to verify the claim of the buffalo and after verification he took the ear tag of the dead buffalo.  It is further averred that after some days, the complainant visited  OP number 2 to know about the claim, but the OP number 2 demanded the tag of the dead cattle, but it was replied that the tag in question has already been taken by Shri Amrik Singh. It is further case of the complainant that despite visiting the Op number 2 so many times, the claim was not settled rather claim was closed as ‘No Claim’. It is further averred that the buffalo in question was insured for Rs.50,000/-, but the OP has wrongly repudiated the claim. 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, it is admitted that the complainant took a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from the OP number 1 for purchase of eight buffaloes. It is further admitted that the said buffaloes are insured with the OP number 2. It is denied that any buffalo of the complainant has been died and it is stated that if there is any claim due, then it is the responsibility of the insurer i.e. OP number 2. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Op number 1 has been denied.

 

3.             In reply filed by Op number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the Op into unwanted litigation, that the complaint is false and frivolous and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the cattle of the complainant are insured.  However, it is denied that the complainant immediately informed the OP about the death of his cattle on 29.4.2015. It is further denied that officer of OP number 2 namely, Amrik Singh visited the premises of the complainant to verify the death of buffalo and demanding of the tag in question is also denied.  The case of the OP number 2 is that the complainant was asked to deposit the ear tag of the dead animal, but he failed to do so despite serving of letters dated 25.8.2015, 25.9.2015 and 28.10.2015 upon the complainant. 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 repudiation letter, Ex.C-3 copy of PMR, Ex.C-4 copy of valuation certificate, Ex.C-5 copy of certificate, Ex.C-6 copy of letter dated 29.4.2015, Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-8 copies of certificates, Ex.C-9 photograph and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number  1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit, Ex.Op1/2 copy of register and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.Op2/1 affidavit, Ex.OP2/2 to Ex.Op2/5 copies of letters 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 buffalos from the OP number 2 by paying the requisite premium.  It is also not in dispute that out of the insured buffalos, one has died on 29.4.2015. But, the dispute is over the non payment of the insurance claim of the dead buffalo by the OP number 2.

 

7.             The learned counsel for the OP number 1 has contended vehemently that after the death of the buffalo on 29.4.2015, the complainant immediately intimated the same to Op number 1. The Op number 2 deputed Shri Amrik Singh, who visited at the spot and took the photographs and also took the tag in question away with him.  But, thereafter the said officer Shri Amrik Singh died, as such, the claim of the complainant could not be processed.  The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that since the tag in question has already been provided to Amrik Singh, an officer of the Op number 2, the same cannot be provided again.  On the other hand, the story led by the complainant has been totally denied by OP number 2 saying that the tag was never taken by the said Amrik Singh.  Now, the fact remains that Shri Amrik Singh has already died, who can only explain about the tag in question whether he had taken the same or not.

 

8.             Now, the question which arises for determination before us is whether the complainant is entitled to get the claim or not. The complainant has also produced on record the post-mortem report dated 9.4.2015 Ex.C-3, wherein it is stated that the dead animal was bearing the tag number 9094. The complainant has also produced on record Ex.C-9 the photograph of the dead buffalo.  We may mention that before insuring the animals, the same are being examined by the Veterinary officer, who issues the health certificate containing all the details of the insured animal and only thereafter the animal is insured.  But, in the present case, the OP number 2 did not try to produce on record the health certificate of the dead animal containing tag number 9094, which could be compared with the photograph of the dead animal to reach to the conclusion whether the dead animal is the same one which was insured or not.  But, the Op did not do so.  There is no explanation from the side of the Op number 2 that why they did not produce the health certificate of the dead animal and what was the reason to withheld the same.  The Op number 2 has produced the affidavit of Rajinder Kumar Ex.OP2/1 and the copies of letters sent to the complainant demanding the tag from the complainant.  Since, the complainant has stated that he has already provided the tag to Shri Amrik Singh, then the question of demanding the same from the complainant again and again does not arise.  As such, we feel that the claim can be decided by the Ops by taking the other angles of the animal also, but the Op number 2 failed to take the same into consideration, such as, health certificate and the photograph as mentioned above.  In the circumstances, we feel that it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 2 by not paying the claim of the dead buffalo to the complainant.

 

9.             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.

10.           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 buffalo in question along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 12.01.2016 till its realisation.  In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

 

11.           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