Punjab

Sangrur

CC/574/2014

Harwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UIIC Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri SS Ratol

03 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    574

                                                Instituted on:      01.10.2014

                                                Decided on:       03.03.2015

 

 

Harwinder Singh son of Mann Singh, R/o Village Kothala, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

 

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

                                                        ..Opposite party

 

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

For OP                      :       Shri Ashish Garg, Adv.

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Harwinder 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 cows for the period from 3.12.2013 to 2.12.2014.  The grievance of the complainant is that one cow bearing token number 71185 suddenly died on 22.12.2013 at 6 AM during the subsistence of the insurance policy. The complainant immediately intimated the OP about the death of the cow.  The post-mortem of the dead cow was conducted by Veterinary Surgeon of Veterinary Hospital, Panjgarian. The employees of the OP immediately visited and verified the death of the cow.  The cow in question was insured for Rs.50,000/- and the doctor also issued the valuation certificate in this respect.  The OP also deputed one surveyor, who checked the dead cow.  The complainant thereafter also submitted all the required documents, but the claim was not paid despite visiting the OP a number of times.  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/- 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.30,000/- on account of mental torture, agony and harassment and an amount of Rs.11,000/- on account of  litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OP, it is stated that on request of the Punjab Live Stock Board, Sector 17, Chandigarh, the OP issued a cattle insurance policy for the period from 4.12.2013 to 3.12.2014 subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and insured two cows belonging to the complainant for Rs.50,000/- each.  It is admitted that after receiving the intimation regarding death of one cow bearing ear tag number 71185, the OP immediately appointed Dr. Ram Kumar for investigation of the claim, who submitted his report dated 10.3.2014 and assessed the value of the cow as Rs.40,000/-.  It is further averred that after examining the entire record carefully, the OP rejected the claim of the complainant as the cow was not fit for insurance  and intimated the complainant vide letter dated 15.10.2014.  It is stated that the doctor is fully responsible for issuance of health certificates in such cases. The claims of such animals are reported within 20 to 40 days of the insurance.  It is stated that the claim has been rightly rejected by the OP.  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 copy of health certificate, Ex.C-2 intimation cum claim form, Ex.C-3 copy of PMR, Ex.C-4 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP-1 copy of policy, Ex.OP-2 copy of investigation report, Ex.OP-3 to Ex.OP-5 copies of letters, Ex.OP-6 to Ex.OP-7 affidavits 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 acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his two cows from the OP under the policy in question, a copy of which on record is Ex.OP/1. It is also not in dispute that the complainant intimated to the OP about the death of the cow in question.  It is further case of the complainant that unfortunately the cow in question of the complainant bearing tag number 71185 died during the subsistence of the insurance policy, but grievance of the complainant is that the OP has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant of the dead cow on the ground that the cow was not fit for insurance and the complainant was intimated about the same vide letter dated 15.10.2014.

 

6.             In the present case, the OP has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the cow in question at the time of insurance was not fit, whereas on the other hand the stand of the complainant is that the cow in question was insured only after the animal was checked by the doctor of the OP and issuance of the health certificate, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-1. A bare perusal of the health certificate of cow clearly shows that the age of the cow was 7 years  and the yield milk is 20 litres and the OP insured the cow for Rs.50,000/- which was issued token number 71185.  All these particulars have been mentioned in the certificate of description of animal. Ex.C-3 is a copy of post mortem report. Ex.C-4 is an affidavit of the complainant.  Ex.OP/2 is a copy of the investigation report conducted by Dr. Ram Kumar, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the claim of the cow should be paid.   However, he has assessed the value of the cow as Rs.40,000/-.  But, there is nothing on record that how he assessed the value of the cow at Rs.40,000/- and what was the formula for the same.   It is further worth mentioning here that if the cow was not fit for insurance, then why the OP had insured the cow in question and what action has been taken by the OP against the erring official, who insured such a cow.  Further, we feel that at this stage, it is not fair for the OP to raise such a plea that the cow was not fit for insurance at the time of insurance.  As such, the fact remains that the insured cow died during the subsistence of the insurance policy.  Admittedly, the cow in question belonging to the complainant was insured for Rs.50,000/-, which amount the OPs are liable to pay to the complainant. We feel further that the repudiation of the claim is not justified by the Ops. Accordingly, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

 

7.             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.

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of death of the insured cow in question along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 01.10.2014 till its realisation.  The OP is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension and harassment and litigation expenses.

 

9.             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 3, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member