Punjab

Sangrur

CC/402/2015

Baldev Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UIIC India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Kulvir Singh

29 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                       

                                                Complaint No.  402

                                                Instituted on:    04.06.2015

                                                Decided on:       29.03.2016

 

Kulvir Singh son of Ram Singh, resident of Jakhal Road (Kotha Bhag Singh), Sunam, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             United India Insurance Company Limited, Dhuri Road, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

2.             United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, SCO 72, Phase-9, SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Divisional Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Kulvir Singh, Adv.

For Opp. Parties       :       Shri Satpal Sharma, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Baldev 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 got insured his one buffalo and two cows with the OPs and the Ops accordingly inserted tag number 56769 (buffalo) and 56770 and 56771 in two cows on 8.3.2013 and the policy was valid for one year and all the animals were insured for Rs.20,000/- each.  It is further averred that the tags and identification mark were affixed by the doctor of the OPs on the said animals.  Further case of the complainant is that on 30.4.2013, the buffalo of the complainant bearing tag number 56769 died, of which intimation was given to the Ops.  After receipt of the intimation, the OPs appointed doctor who removed the tag and the OPs settled the claim at Rs.18,000/- of which payment was made through cheque number 827076 dated 22.4.2014 for Rs.18,000/-, whereas the buffalo was insured for Rs.20,000/-.  It is further averred that when the complainant objected regarding less payment of the claim, the Ops assured the remaining payment of Rs.2000/- will be made to the complainant, but all in vain.

 

2.             The complainant has further averred in the complaint that on 3.10.2013, one cow of the complainant bearing tag number 56771 died, as such, intimation was given to the Ops.  The Ops appointed doctor, who removed the tag and took photo graphs of the dead cow.  The complainant fulfilled all the required formalities and submitted the documents. The Ops settled the claim at Rs.18,000/- and sent the cheque to the complainant, but the cheque in question was bearing wrong father name i.e. Ram Kumar instead of Ram Singh, as such, the complainant returned the cheque to Shri Manjinder Singh, Manager of the OPs at Mohali for correction of father name and further requested to pay the balance amount of Rs.2000/- in the previous claim, but the same was never returned to the complainant.  As such, 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 claim amount of Rs.22,000/- along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious, which deserves to be dismissed, that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed material facts from this Forum, that the present case is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of the parties.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant got insured one buffalo and two cows from the Ops against which tag number 56769, 56770 and 56771 were inserted in the animals.   It has been admitted that the buffalo of the complainant was died and the Ops settled the claim at Rs.18,000/- which was paid vide cheque number 827076 dated 22.4.2014.  Further it is stated that one cow of the complainant died of which the OPs accepted the claim of the complainant and issued a cheque amounting to Rs.18,000/-.  However, it has been denied that father name of the complainant was wrongly mentioned by the Ops as Ram Kumar instead of Ram Singh. It has been denied that the complainant returned the cheque to the Ops with a request to issue new/fresh one by mentioning correct name of his father.  It has further been denied that the Manager of the OPs told to the complainant to send the cheque in question at his office address and after that he will release the payment.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 copies of health certificates, Ex.C-4 copy of PMR, Ex.C-5 copy of cheque dated 22.4.2014, Ex.C-6 copy of postal receipt dated 12.12.2013 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file 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 one buffalo and two cows from the OPs on 08.03.2013 for one year for Rs.20,000/- each.  It is admitted fact that the buffalo of the complainant bearing tag number 56769 died on 30.4.2013 of which the Ops have made the payment of the claim vide cheque number 827076 dated 22.4.2014 for Rs.18,000/-.  Under the circumstances, there is no dispute about the claim of this dead animal, as there is no documentary evidence on record that the complainant ever lodged any claim for balance payment of Rs.2000/-. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant accepted the claim as full and final for Rs.18,000/- with his free will.

 

7.             Further on 3.10.2013, one of the cow bearing tag number 56771 also died of which the complainant lodged the claim with the OPs, which is not in dispute by the OPs. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant submitted the documents and the Ops issued a cheque for Rs.18,000/-.  In this respect, the grievance of the complainant is only that the OPs wrongly mentioned the name of father of the complainant as Ram Kumar instead of Ram Singh on the cheque, as such, the complainant sent the cheque in question to one of the official of the OPs, namely, Manjinder Singh at Mohali on 12.12.2013 by registered post, as is evident from the copy of postal receipt, Ex.C-6.  But, the Ops have denied the receipt of any such cheque from the complainant and the version of the Ops is that either the cheque has been encashed or the cheque is in the custody of the complainant.  The fact remains that the claim of the cow was settled at Rs.18,000/- by the OPs and  cheque in question was issued in the name of the complainant for Rs.18,000/- by the Ops in lieu of the cow claim. 

 

8.             During the present proceedings, the complainant moved an application on 11.01.2016 to produce the account statement vide which the Ops alleged to have cleared the cheque from their bank account, which was issued by mentioning the wrong father name of the complainant after 3.10.2013, but the Ops did not file  satisfactory reply to the application, rather it was stated again that either the cheque has been encashed or the same is in the custody of the complainant.  It is further worth mentioning here that the Ops did not produce any accounts statement on record to show that the cheque in question for Rs.18000/- (being the claim amount of dead cow) has been encashed by the complainant. We may further mention that the Ops have  produced the bank statement of HDFC Bank Limited, Kaula Park, Sangrur, but when the same was perused, there is no such entry to show that the cheque in question for Rs.18,000/- was encashed.  In the circumstances, we feel that the Ops intentionally and deliberately did not produce the accounts statement of HDFC Bank, Mohali, despite directions by this Forum.  Further, the Ops have not produced any evidence/accounts statement to show that the cheque in question for Rs.18000/- has been encashed by the complainant.  It is worth mentioning here that the OP is a public limited company, who is bound to maintain the bank records, claim records as well as the cheque encashed/not encashed records.  Further it is not the case of the Ops that the cheque in question for Rs.18,000/- has been encashed. Had the cheque in question been got encashed by the complainant, the OPs would have produced such a bank statement on record to show the fact of encashment of cheque in question.  Under the circumstances, we feel that it is a clear cut case of concealment of material and true facts on the part of the OPs.  We feel that the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.18,000/- from the OPs.

 

9.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.18,000/- in lieu of earlier lost cheque on account of the dead cow claim.  Further the Ops are directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3500/- on account of litigation expenses.  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.

                March 29, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

 

                                                             (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                  Member

                                                             

                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member