Complainant Harjit Singh vide the present complaint filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short The Act) for issuance of the necessary directions to the titled opposite party to make the payment of claim raised by him i.e. Rs.40,000/- with respect to Cows bearing Tag/Chip No.008906 and Rs.50,000/- with respect to cows bearing Tag/Chip No.USGI 650718 alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. Opposite party be further directed to pay compensation for illegally harassment by the opposite parties to him and be also granted any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum deem fit, in the interest of justice.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is agriculturist and is also maintaining dairy farm in his village. He purchased 13 H.F. Cow for Rs.50,000/- each and got them insured with opposite parties vide Insurance Policy No.3016/52508841/00/000 dated 06.09.2012 which was to be commenced w.e.f. 28.08.2012 and it was valid upto 27.08.2015. These cows got insured for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each. Similarly he also purchased 4 H F. Cows for Rs.50,000/- each and he got them insured with opposite parties vide Insurance Policy No.3016/53441048/00/000 dated 11.9.2013. These cows also got insured for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each. The validity period of the said insurance policy commenced from 04.09.2013 and it was valid upto 03.09.2016. He has paid full premium of 13 H.F. Cows was Rs.24,960/-, whereas the premium paid by him for the insurance of 4 H.F. His insured Cow was made on the persuasion of Sh.Varinder Sabharwal, who approached to him at his village and he made payment of amount of premiums. All the papers regarding completion of formalities of insurance policy were completed. He has further pleaded that the payment of premium was made by him to the opposite parties by transferring the amount of premium of Rs.15,955/- through his banker i.e. Allahabad Bank, Branch G.T.Road, Batala as he is holding his bank account in the said Bank bearing account No.5016242217 and amount of premium was paid through bank transaction No.2574735 dated 2.9.2013. The agent also tagged his insured cows and ear Tag Nos/Chip Nos. of 13 Cows is i.e. 008981, 008906, 008969, 008981,008966, 008929, 008979, 008961, 008971, 008977, 008995, 008921 and 008939. He has next pleaded that his H.F.Cow bearing ear Tag No./Chip No.008906 died on 25.4.2015 which was duly insured and he got conducted the postmortem of the dead cow by Dr.Punit Mahajan of Veterinary Hospital, Gutdaspur under the supervision of surveyor of the opposite parties namely Anand. He has purchased the abovesaid cows by raising loan from Punjab National Bank, Branch Simble Cowk, Batala, District Gurdaspur. His one H.F. Cow bearing Tag No.USGI/000000650718 died on 26.04.2015 and the postmortem was conducted on the same day alongwith the cow which was died on 25.4.2015 under the supervision of surveyor of the opposite parties. He lodged his claim for reimbursement of the insurance amount of abovesaid two dead cows but the opposite parties refused to make his payment of the insurance claim on the ground that he has not raised loan from the Allahabad Bank, Branch G.T.Road, Batala and also asserted that in case he has raised loan from any other bank except Allahabad Bank, the opposite parties are not liable to make payment of the insurance claim, whereas earlier his some of the cows out of the cows which were got insured by him vide insurance policy No.3016/52508841/00/000 dated 06.09.2012 also died and the opposite parties have made payment of the insurance claim and did not raise any such objection. The said cows were also purchased by him by raising loan from Punjab National Bank, Branch Simble Chowk, Batala, District Gurdaspur. Opposite parties refused to make his payment on some flimsy grounds. The claim which was lodged by him with regard to the cow bearing Tag No./Chip No.008906 which was duly registered and numbered as 15005955 and the claim with respect to cow Tag/Chip No.65718 was numbered as 15005976, whereas the opposite parties are liable to make the payment of the insurance claim to him and he is entitled to receive the same from the opposite parties and he was not bound to raise loan from Allahabad Bank. He approached many times to the opposite parties and requested them to make the payment of the claim but of no use. A legal notice dated 5.5.2016 through his counsel was also served upon the opposite parties but they did not reply the same. Hence this complaint.

3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed their joint written version taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action; the complaint is not maintainable; the complainant concealed the true and material facts from this Ld.Forum, so he is not entitled to any relief and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company as such the present complaint is not maintainable. Actually, as per Proposal Form and policy in question, the Allahabad Bank is mentioned as the name of hypothecation Bank, but at the time of raising the claim, the bank has been mentioned as Punjab National Bank. So the abovsaid hypothecation bank information is essential for processing the claim due to which the demand of loan sanction letter has been made from the complainant and the letter has been sent in this regard but no document has been submitted as per demand, due to which the claim has not been paid. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is pre-mature as due to non-availability of the documents it has not been decided till yet and it is the complainant who is at fault and failed to fulfill his part of obligation. On merits, it was submitted that as per Proposal Form and policy in question, the Allahabad Bank is mentioned as the name of hypothecation Bank, but at the time of raising the claim, the bank has been mentioned as Punjab National Bank. So, the abovesaid hypothecation bank information is essential for processing the claim due to which the demand of loan sanction letter has been made from the complainant and the letter has been sent in this regard but no document has been submitted as per demand, due to which the claim has been paid. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4. Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW-1/A along with the other documents exhibited as Ex.C1 to Ex.C16 and closed the evidence.

5. On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Mr.Piyush Shanker Ex.OP1, alongwith the other documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP18 including Ex.OP-3/A and closed the evidence.

6. We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also judiciously considered and perused the arguments as duly put forth by the learned counsels along with the incidental scope of adverse inference for some documents that have been somehow ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants. We observe that the prime dispute prompted at the continuing non-settlement of the complainant’s insurance claim pertaining to his two nos of Bank financed insured cows (since demised) on flimsy grounds and arbitrary considerations. Incidentally, the cows’ insurance and their subsequent demise has not been in dispute but the alleged ‘interchange’ mix of names of two different financing Bank i.e., the hypothecatee (pledgee) Bank(s) have caused ‘delay’ in settlement of the two claims in question. We understand the genuineness and vitality of the ‘issue’ in question since the insurance claims need to be credited in the related ‘dairy loan’ account(s) with the respective Bank financing the specific cow at the time of its being ‘alive’.

7. The complainant has alleged ‘sudden death’ to his two nos of insured cows with the insurance ‘ear-tag’ nos 650718 & 008906 and has also produced their respective PMR (Post Mortem Reports) as Ex.C13 & Ex.C14 along with the related insurance policy(s) Ex.C8 & Ex.C9 but with the name of Allahabad Bank as hypothecatee financer in both the cases and that fails his plea of one cow as having been duly financed by the other (PNB) Bank.

8. We further find that the OP insurers have duly proved the contented allegations of written-statement through the produced documentary evidence vide the documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP18 and that also proves the need of the requisitioned documents for deciding the settlement of the pending claim in question.

9. In the light of the all above, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint shall be best disposed of by directing the complainant to submit the requisitioned documents/information (as available within his reach) to the OP insurers within the first 15 working days of receipt of the present orders and who in turn are hereby further directed to decide the impugned claim strictly as per the applicable terms of related policy within next 15 days of the receipt of documents (whatsoever received by them) and to communicate the same to the complainant. The parties shall however bear their own costs, here.

10. Copy of the orders be communicated to the parties free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to records.

(Naveen Puri)

President

Announced: (Jagdeep Kaur)

July 07, 2017 Member

*MK*