DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 99 of 9.3.2016
Decided on: 20.7.2017
Narinder Singh aged about 45 years S/o Sh.Rattan Singh R/o Villageg Dhakrabba, P.O. Wazidpur, Tehsil & District Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. The United India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch office Sai Market, Lower Mall, Patiala through its Branch Manager.
2. The United India Insurance Company Ltd.,Divisional office: SCO-72, Phase-9, SAS Nagar, Mohali- 160 062, through its Divisional Manager.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.D.S.Behgal,Advocate,counsel for complainant.
Sh.D.P.S.Anand, Advocate,
counsel for Opposite party No.1
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh.Narinder Singh, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To pay Rs.8000/-, paid less towards the death claim of the cow
alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of death of the cow till realization
- To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to her
2. In brief , the case of the complainant is that he deals in dairy farming at village Dhakrabha, P.O.Wazidpur, Tehsil & District Patiala and got his cow bearing Tag No.86137, breed HFC, insured with the OPs vide token No.86137 (Registration No.1875), for the period from 28.3.2015 to 27.3.2016 and paid an amount of Rs.1092/- as premium. The insured value of the cow was assessed at Rs.50,000/-. It is stated that before the insurance of the said cow, a veterinary health certificate was issued by the Veterinary officer. The cow died on 3.8.2015. He lodged the claim with the OPs. Investigation was got conducted by the OPs.The OPs paid an amount of Rs.42,000/- on 10.12.2015 to him by ignoring the insured value of the cow, which is totally wrong, illegal and without any basis. He got served a legal notice upon the OPs on 2.1.2016 but till today no response had been given, which amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and he underwent a lot of mental agony and physical harassment. Hence this complaint.
3. Cognizance of the complaint was taken against OP no.1 who, on being put to notice, appeared and filed the written version taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable, as the claim of the complainant had already been settled; that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to try the present complaint, as the insurance contract was signed at Mohali; that the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint as the policy was issued in the name of Punjab Livestock Development Board, 17 Bays Building Sec-17,Chandigarh and this party has not been impleaded as OP and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.On merits, it is stated that Punjab Livestock Development Board, Chandigarh, purchased Cattle Insurance Policy for the period from 28.3.2015 to 27.3.2016,covering the risk of 29 cows belonging to different persons including the cow of the complainant, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-each. It is further stated that on receipt of intimation of death of the cow, the OP No.1 immediately deputed Dr.Dina Nath, Deputy Director Animal Husbandry, Patiala to assess the market value of the dead animal, who in his report dated 25.8.2015,assessed the value of the dead cow as Rs.42,000/-.This amount had been paid to the complainant through his bank account. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. On being called to do so, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant,Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C7 and closed the evidence.
The ld. counsel for the OP No.1 has tendered in evidence affidavit of Smt.Kanta Devi Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Exs.OP2 to OP4 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case,carefully.
6. At the out set, the ld. counsel for the Op No.1 has raised the objection that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter because the policy in question had been issued from Chandigarh office. To this effect, the ld. counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant is running his dairy farm at village Dhakrabba Tehsil and District, Patiala and the official of the insurance company came to his dairy farm at village Dhakrabba District Patiala for affixing a tag in the ear of the insured cow for identification purpose. As such the cause of action has arisen within the territory of District Patiala, therefore, this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicated upon the matter. It may be stated that it is not the case of the Op No.1 that they had affixed the tag in the ear of the insured cow at Chandigarh. Even otherwise it is of a common knowledge that for the sake of convenience, the insurance companies usually send their employee or agent for affixation of the tag in the ear of the insured cattle at the place, where it is stabled. Thus, we have no reason to disbelieve the contention of the ld. counsel for the complainant that the official of the Ops had come to affix the tag in the ear of the insured cow at his farm house, situated at District Patiala. Since the tag in the ear of the insured cow was affixed within the territory of District Patiala, as such, a part of cause of action has arisen within the territory of Patiala. Therefore, as per Section 11(2) of the Act this Forum has the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter.
On merits, the ld. counsel for the counsel for Op No.1 has submitted that the claim amount of Rs.42000/- as assessed by the investigator has already paid to the complainant. Thus, the Op No.1 cannot be said to be deficient in providing service. To this effect, the ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that at the time of insurance of the cow in question, the market value of the said cow was assessed at Rs.50,000/- by the Ops. Since his cow died within five months from the date of insurance, therefore, he is entitled to get the full market value of Rs.50,000/-. The Ops by paying him less amount of Rs.8000/- have committed deficiency in service. Thus, they are not only liable to pay the remaining amount of Rs.8000/- but also liable to pay compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.
7. From the copy of the Cattle Insurance Policy, Ex.OP2, it is evident that a cow bearing tag No.86137 mentioned at Sr.No.12 of the schedule attached with the policy, was duly insured with the Ops, for a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the period from 28.3.2015 to 27.3.2016. From the copy of postmortem certificate, Ex.C2, it is evident that the cow bearing tag No. 86137 was died on 3.8.2015, i.e. within a period of five months from the date of issuance of the insurance policy in question. From the letter dated 23.5.2016, Ex.OP4, it is evident that the insurance company had paid a sum of Rs.42000/- through NEFT on 9.12.2015, as per value assessed by the Investigator. We have also gone through the report of Investigator, Ex.OP1. who assessed the value of the cow to the tune of 42000/- only. However, no reason whatsoever has been given by the said investigator that as to how, he has assessed the market value of the said cow at Rs.42000/- and has not disclosed why the market value of the cow in question decreased by Rs.8000/- within a short span of five months. As such the said investigator was not justified in assessing the value of the cow. By paying less amount to the tune of Rs.8000/- to the complainant, the Op has committed deficiency in service, for which it is not only liable to pay the remaining amount of the claim but has also to pay compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint and direct Op No.1 in the following manner:
i. To pay Rs.8000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @7% from 9.12.2015 i.e. the date of payment of Rs.42000/-made through NEFT
ii. To pay Rs.5000/-as compensation to the complainant, which is inclusive of litigation expenses.
The Op No.1 is further directed to comply the order within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. The certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:20.7. 2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
