Punjab

Sangrur

CC/444/2015

Tarsem Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UIIC Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

SHri Kulvir Singh Sunam

23 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    444

                                                Instituted on:      08.06.2015

                                                Decided on:       23.11.2015

 

Tarsem Singh, 52 years son of Arjan Singh, resident of village Sansarpura, Nelowal Road, Sunam, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Dhuri Road, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

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

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Kulvir Singh, Adv.

For OPs                    :       Shri Ashish Garg, Adv.

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

       

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Tarsem 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 obtained the services of the OPs by getting insured his two cows for the period from 19.8.2014 to 18.8.2015 and the OPs accordingly provided tag number 76466 and 76467, which were affixed in the respective cows.. It is further averred that the cow bearing tag number 76466 was insured for Rs.50,000/- whereas the cow bearing tag number 76467 was for Rs.20,000/-.  It is further averred that unfortunately on 29.12.2014, the doctor of the OPs informed that one cow having tag number 76466 has died and thereafter the doctor of the OPs took photographs and conducted the post-mortem of the cow.  And further the complainant completed all the formalities as required by the OPs, but even then the claim of the complainant was not paid.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OPs 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.35,000/- 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 OPs, it is admitted that the complainant got insured his cows from the OPs.  It is further admitted that the complainant informed the OPs about the death of the cow bearing tag number 76466 and the OPs immediately appointed Dr. Ram Kumar for investigation of the claim, who submitted his report dated 16.03.2015 and assessed Rs.40,000/- regarding value of the deceased cow at the time of death  and the same was paid to the complainant as per policy clause.  Thus, any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of health certificate, Ex.C-3 copy of PMR, Ex.C-4 copy of bank statement and closed evidence.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP1&2/1 copy of policy, Ex.OP1&2/2 copy of survey report, Ex.OP1&2/3 affidavit of Dr. Ram Kumar and Ex.Op1&2/4 affidavit of Raman Sharma and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very 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 parties that the cow in question who has died was insured with the OPs vide insurance policy for the period from 19.08.2014 to 18.08.2015, a copy of which on record is OP1&2/1.  It is further case of the OPs that after receipt of information about the death of the cow in question, the Ops immediately appointed Dr. Ram Kumar, who submitted his report dated 16.03.2015, a copy of which on record is Ex.OP1&2/2 and assessed the claim payable amount to the tune of Rs.40,000/- as per the status of the carcass and the said amount of Rs.40,000/- has already been paid to the complainant by the Ops through NEFT in his account on 5.6.2015.   Further the learned counsel for the OPs has contended that the Ops have rightly paid the claim amount of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant in view of cattle insurance policy, which is on record as Ex.OP1&2/1.  It is stated in the policy that the complainant shall be entitled “…. the loss which the insured shall suffer by the death of such animal not exceeding the sum insured in respect thereof as stated in the schedule hereto or its market value at the time of loss whichever is less…”.   No doubt, it is true that the cow in question was insured for Rs.50,000/- , but at the time of its death the surveyor has assessed the market value of the cow in question as Rs.40,000/- as per his report, a copy of which on record is Ex.OP1&2/2 and the same claim amount has already been paid to the complainant.   The Ops have also produced the sworn affidavit of Dr. Ram Kumar, Ex.OP1&2/3 to support his contention that the market value of the cow at the time of its death was Rs.40,000/- only. The complainant has produced nothing on record to the contrary that the market value of the cow at the time of its death was Rs.50,000/- ,  as such, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case by producing cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record to prove that the value of the cow at the time of its death was Rs.50,000/-, more so when the OPs have produced on record the report of Dr. Ram Kumar as well as his affidavit Ex.OP1&2/3. As such, we feel that there is no need to interfere with the report of Dr. Ram Kumar.

 

6.             In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed. 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.

                November 23, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member