Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/126/2017

M/s Haryana Dairy Farms - Complainant(s)

Versus

The United India Insurance Company Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar Adv.

12 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	126/2017
Date of Institution	:	06.02.2017
Date of Decision	:	12.09.2017

 

                                                

                                                         

M/s Haryana Dairy Farms, Village Dehri, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala through its Partner Sh.Sharad K.Gupta.

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,  through its Branch Manager, SCO 855, 1^st Floor, NAC Manimajra, Chandigarh

…. Opposite Party.

BEFORE:   SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh.Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the complainant

                   Sh.Satpal Dhamija, Advocate for the OP.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           In brief, the case of the complainant-company is that   the company purchased 13 cows through State Bank of India Panchkula which were got insured with the OP for the period from 17.08.2016 to 16.08.2017 vide policy (Annexure C-2).  According to the complainant, on 19.12.2016, one cow bearing ear tag No.900115000134246 died which was insured for Rs.80,000/- as per the health certificate issued by Dr.Joseph K.Masih (Annexure C-1).  The complainant gave due information to the OP, who appointed investigator.  The complainant completed all the formalities and supplied all the required/demanded documents.  The post mortem was conducted by the Local Govt. Veterinary Doctor.  However, on 12.01.2017, the complainant came to know from the bank that the OP had transferred Rs.60,000/- through NEFT on 11.01.2017 instead of Rs.80,000/-. On 12.01.2017, the complainant wrote a letter to the OP with the request to remit the balance amount of Rs.20,000/-, but, to no avail.  The complainant received letter dated 18.01.2017 whereby it was informed that the market value was assessed at Rs.60,000/- by the investigator. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the instant complaint. 
2.             The OP, in its written statement, has not disputed the death of the insured cow during the existence of the insurance policy.  It has been averred that after receiving intimation of death of the cattle in question, the OP deputed the investigator who submitted his independent investigation report recommending Rs.60,000/- on the basis of the market value prior to sudden death on the basis of its milk yield capacity and as non-pregnant general condition of cow especially poor breeding efficiency as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.  It has been contended that the claim of the complainant was rightly settled for Rs.60,000/- in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
3.         The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of the Opposite Party controverting their stand and reiterating its own.
4.         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.
5.        The core question, which requires to be decided in this case is as to whether the OP rightly made payment of Rs.60,000/- to the complainant or it is liable to pay the amount of Rs.80,000/- as per policy as claimed by the complainant.
6.         The stand taken by OP is that as per the report of the investigator, though the cattle in question was insured for Rs.80,000/-, but when it died, its market value was not more than Rs.60,000/- as per health condition of the cow and milk yield capacity prior to death. As such the said amount was transferred to the account of the complainant. Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of the OP.
7.           We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above arguments of the learned Counsel for the OP but we regret our inability to accept the same. It is noteworthy that at the time of insurance, the market value of the deceased cow was assessed at Rs.80,000/- and the premium was taken accordingly from the complainant. The cow was insured for the period from 17.08.2016  to 16.08.2017 and it died on 19.12.2016 i.e. after four months of the inception of the insurance policy. The Investigator of the OP has assessed the market value of the cow as Rs.60,000/- at the time of its death. According to the OP, the market value was based on the milk yield capacity/potential and the general condition of the dead cow prior to its death. However, there is no document on record which indicate general condition of the cow prior to its death. We are unable to accept that the market value of the cow decreased by Rs.20,000/- within after four months of the inception of the policy. There is no other data on record proving health of the cow got deteriorated and potential decreased after the inception of the policy and prior to its death. The OP could reduce the market value had the cow been not yielding milk. The complainant has even specifically stated in the claim form that the milk yield capacity of the cow in question was 24 liters per day prior to her illness. We are of the view that the Investigator deducted the amount of Rs.20,000/- from the insured value of the cow, without any rhyme or reason. Such a reduction in the market value is arbitrary and not based on just grounds.   Consequently, we are of the opinion that the conduct of the OP points out towards adoption of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
8.           In addition, it is also pertinent to note that the amount of Rs.60,000/- was transferred in the account of the complainant without giving it an opportunity of lodging any protest. Had the complainant been given an opportunity, it could explain that the reduction was not justified on account of condition of the cow prior to its death.  Hence, on account of the conduct and anti-consumer attitude of the OP, the complainant has suffered harassment and mental agony.
9.         In view of the above discussion, we find merit in the complaint and the same is partly allowed. OP is directed:-

1. To make payment of an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of transfer of amount of Rs.60,000/- in the account of the complainant through NEFT till its realization.
2. To make payment of the composite amount of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for harassment and mental agony and litigation expenses.     

10.         This order shall be complied with by the OP within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, OP shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount as mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) from the date of this order till its realization besides the compliance of the direction as mentioned at Sr.No.(i).
11.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

12.09.2017                                                                      

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER