Punjab

Sangrur

CC/259/2018

Bahadur Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.B.S.Phumanwal

28 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  259

                                                Instituted on:    01.06.2018

                                                Decided on:       28.01.2019

 

Bahadur Singh son of Sh. Surjit Singh, resident of Village Nadmpur, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune-411 006 through its General Manager.

2.             The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. SCO 147, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Manager.

3.             Bajaj Allianze Life Insurance Company Ltd. FCI Building, Near BSNL Exchange, Club Road, Sangrur through its Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

 

For the complainant  :       Shri B.S.Phumanwal, Adv.

For OP 1&2              :       Shri Bhushan Garg, Adv.

For OP No.3             :       Shri Jatinder Verma, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Vinod Kumar Gulati, Presiding Member

                Mrs. Manisha, Member.

 

Order by : Vinod Kumar Gulati, Presiding Member.

 

1.             Shri Bahadur 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 availed the services of the OPs by getting insured his three cattle from the OPs vide policy number OG-18-1203-5002-00001527  for the period from 21.9.2017 to 20.9.2018 for Rs.1,20,000/- by paying the requisite premium of Rs.4234/-.

 

2.             Further case of the complainant is that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, unfortunately one buffalo of the complainant died on 12.1.2018 and as such the complainant intimated the OPs about the death of the buffalo and the OPs sent surveyor/investigator, who procured the signatures of the complainant on some printed and blank papers and assured the claim would be paid.  Post mortem on the said buffalo was also conducted on 12.1.2018.  But, the grievance of the complainant is that the OPs repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that ear tag was found broken vide letter dated 16.5.2018. 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 an amount of Rs.50,000/-  along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of death of the buffalo till realisation and further complainant has claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply filed by the OPs number  1 and 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs as the repudiation of the claim has been made after considering all the material and relevant facts, that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and that this Forum has got no cause of action to file and maintain the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant got insured his three buffalo in question. It is also admitted that after receipt of the intimation, the OPs appointed Shri Rakesh Kumar Mehta, Malerkotla to find the genuineness of the claim and to asses the loss suffered by the complainant.  But, on perusal of the investigation report and documents supported, it was observed that the dead animal was not genuine as the same was uninsured as the tag number 34907 was broken one. It is denied that the animal was insured for Rs.50,000/-.  It is stated further that the claim has rightly been repudiated vide letter dated 16.5.2018. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

4.             In reply filed by OP number 3, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the present cause of action is related with Bajaj General Insurance Company Limited and no relation with the OP with regard to the policy and further the OP number 3 deals in only life insurance, so the complainant inadvertently added the OP 3 in this case, that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant has no cause of action against the OP to file the present complaint. On merits, the allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto as the OP number 3 deals in life insurance only.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 copies of the documents and affidavits and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 and 2 has produced Ex.OP-1&2/1 to Ex.OP1&2/9 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.OP3/1 affidavit and closed evidence. 

 

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record. None of the parties submitted the written arguments.

 

7.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant got insured his 3 buffalo in question from the OP by paying the requisite premium for the period from 21.9.2017 to 20.9.2018 and the OPs issued the insurance policy, a copy of which on record as Ex.C-2, which clearly reveals that the complainant got insured his three buffalo for Rs.40,000/- each and the dead buffalo having the disputed tag number 34907 is also insured one.  Ex.OP1&2/1 is the broken tag bearing number 34907. In the present case, the OPs have repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the tag in question at the time of death was broken one, whereas the complainant has clearly stated that the tag was intact at the time of the death of the buffalo in question. We have further perused the whole case file and find that the OPs have not paid/settled the claim of the dead buffalo only on the ground that the tag in question was in broken condition at the time of death of the buffalo. We have also perused the copy of post-mortem report on record as Ex.C-3, which clearly shows that the tag number 34907 was recovered at the time of post-mortem, but there is no mention that the tag in question was broken at the time of post-mortem of the dead buffalo.  As such, we are unable to go with this contention of the learned counsel for the OP that the claim of the complainant is liable to be rejected on the ground of broken tag. While going through the letter dated 8.4.2018 Ex.OP1.2/1 from the surveyor to the Branch Manager/Bajaj Allianze, Ludhiana, it has been observed that the surveyor was present during the post mortem and could have requested the concerned doctor conducting the post-mortem to mention the correct condition of the tag in his report. Opinion of the surveyor as mentioned in the above letter seems to be after thought as the post-mortem was conducted on 12.1.2018 and the letter of the concerned branch Manager at Ludhiana was written on 8.4.2018 after lapse of about 3 months.

 

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 OPs number 1 and 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.40,000/- being the insurance claim on account of death of the insured buffalo in question along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 27.04.2018 till realisation.  We further direct OP number 1 and 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.6,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension and harassment and litigation expenses.

 

10.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of forty five days of its communication. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

 

                        Pronounced.

                        January 28, 2019.                                                    

                       

 

                                                          (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                             Presiding Member

 

 

 

                                                                (Manisha)

                                                                  Member