Punjab

Sangrur

CC/554/2014

Baldev Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UIIC LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

Shr S.S. Saggu

07 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    554

                                                Instituted on:      18.09.2014

                                                Decided on:       07.04.2015

 

Baldev Singh son of Bant Singh, R/o Kanjhla, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Manager, SCO 72, Phase-9, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

                                                        ..Opposite party

 

For the complainant    :       Shri S.S.Saggu, Adv.

For OP                      :       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 party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant obtained the services of the OP by getting insured his two cows for the period from 2.3.2013 to 1.2.2014 and the OP accordingly provided tag number 29973 and 29971.  It is further averred that unfortunately on 23.9.2012 one cow of the complainant died and the complainant accordingly intimated the OP.  The representative of the OP visited the house of the complainant and took the photographs of dead cow and also collected the tag from the complainant along with claim form. It is further averred that the post mortem of the dead cow was conducted by Dr. T.J. Singh. The complainant approached the OP a number of times to get the claim, but nothing happened.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- being the claim amount along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of death of the cow till realisation. Further the complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.25,000/- on account of mental torture, agony and harassment and an amount of Rs.8800/- on account of  litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OP, it is admitted that the complainant got insured his cows from the OP having token number 29973 breed HFC having market value of Rs.50,000/-vide policy number 112100/47/ 11/01/00000312 for the period from  15.11.2012 to 14.11.2013. It is further stated that as per the health certificate, the forehead of the cow was white and at that time the age of the cow was 5 years and 2^nd lactation.  It is admitted that the OP had received intimation on 23.9.2012 regarding the death of the cow and the complainant submitted claim form. It is admitted that the post-mortem of the cow was conducted by Dr. T.J.Singh and on the same day the OP also deputed Dr. Ram Kumar for the spot verification of dead cow. It is further stated that as per the health certificate the forehead of the insured cow was white but the forehead of the dead cow was black with white patch and from the photographs of dead animal the age of the cow appears 7-8 years old in 4^th or 5^th lactation whereas as per health certificate the cow was of 5 years and 2^nd lactation.  As such, it is stated that the description of the insured cow does not match with the dead cow, as such, the claim has been repudiated.  Any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-7 photographs, Ex.C-8 copy of health certificate, Ex.C-9 copy of intimation, Ex.C-10 copy of PMR and Ex/C-11 affidavit and closed evidence.   On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 copy of policy, Ex.OP-3 copy of cattle insurance policy, Ex.OP-4 copy of claim, Ex.OP-5 copy of claim note, Ex.OP-6 copy of intimation, Ex.OP-7 copy of PMR, Ex.OP-8 copy of health certificate, Ex.OP-9 to Ex.OP-13 copies of photographs and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact of the complainant that the cow in question died on 23.09.2012, the intimation of which was given to the OP.  Further it is contended that the Op failed to pay the insurance claim of the dead cow to the complainant despite his repeated visits.

 

6.             In the present case, the stand of the OP is that the cow in question died on 23.09.2012, whereas the cows were insured for the period from 15.11.2012 to 14.11.2013 meaning thereby the cow in question died on 23.09.2012 i.e. before effecting insurance of the cow in question and that there was no insurance of the cows on 23.09.2012 i.e. date of death of the cow in question.  Ex.OP-2 is the copy of insurance policy which clearly reveals that the period of insurance for the cows was from 15.11.2012 to 14.11.2013 having ID number 29973 and 29971. The complainant has not produced on record any certificate of insurance/cover note/ policy to show that the cow in question was insured for the period from 2.3.2012 as alleged in the complaint itself.   The complainant was supposed to produce on record the certificate of insurance/cover note to show that the cows in question were actually insured with the OP with effect from 2.3.2012.  There is no dispute in the present case that the cow in question was died and post-mortem on the dead body of the cow was conducted by Dr. T.J. Singh.  In the circumstances of the case, since the complainant has failed to produce on record the cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record showing the insurance of the cows and death of the cow during the subsistence of the insurance policy, we are unable to grant any relief to the complainant.  In the reply of the complaint, it is the specific stand of the OP that the period of insurance was from 15.11.2012 to 14.11.2013, whereas the cow in question died on 23.09.2012.  As such, we find no case made out in favour of the complainant.

 

7.             Without going further into the merits of the case, we find that there was no insurance at the time of death of the cow, as such, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                April 7, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member