Punjab

Sangrur

CC/260/2015

Usminder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UIIC LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri S.S.Ratol

07 Oct 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    260

                                                Instituted on:      04.05.2015

                                                Decided on:       07.10.2015

 

Usminder Singh son of Nirbhay Singh son of Surjit Singh, R/O Sangheri, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Patiala Road, Nabha, District Patiala.

                                                        ..Opposite party

 

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

For OP                     :       Shri Sat Paul Sharma, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Usminder 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 got his cows insured from the OP for the period from 12.1.2012 to 11.1.2015 and the Op inserted  chips in all the cows.

 

2.             Further case of the complainant is that one cow bearing chip number 900108000004499 suddenly died on 8.8.2014 during the subsistence of the insurance policy and the post mortem of the dead  cow was conducted by Dr. Ravi Singla, Veterinary Surgeon of Veterinary Hospital, Akbarpur and the surveyor of the OP Dr. Ram Kumar also visited the house of the complainant for verification of the death of the cow.   The complainant also submitted all the documents to the OP and completed all the formalities required for the claim. But, the OP wrongly and without any basis repudiated the rightful claim of the complainant on the ground that the chip in question was in broken condition. It is further averred that the chip was inserted by M/s. Guru Ramdass Chipping Company i.e. representative of the OP, which was removed by the doctor, as such, the complainant has no role to play at the time of insertion of the chip.  As such, 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.

 

3.             In reply filed by the OP, it is admitted that the cows of the complainant were insured by the OP and out of them, one cow bearing chip number 900108000004499, breed HF having market value of Rs.50,000/- was insured vide policy number 111703/47/11/01/00000269 for the period from 12.1.2012 to 11.1.2015 which was having black colour. It is admitted that the OP received intimation on 8.8.2014 regarding the death of the cow in question and the complainant submitted the claim form.  The post mortem of the dead cow was conducted by Dr. Ravi Singla and the Op also appointed Dr. Ram Kumar for spot verification of the dead cow of the complainant. The chip of the dead cow was taken out and found that the same was not readable as per the investigation report of Dr. Ram Kumar.  It is denied that the OP repudiated the claim without any reason.  It is stated that the dead cow was not insured one.  As such, it is stated that the claim has been rightly repudiated and any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of the insurance policy, Ex.C-2 copy of claim form, Ex.C-3 copy of valuation certificate, Ex.C-4 copy of sarpanch certificate, Ex.C-5 copy of PMR, Ex.C-6 copy of cattle insurance policy, Ex.C-7 copy of examiner animal certificate, Ex.C-8 copy of health certificate, Ex.C-9 copy of receipt dated 9.1.2012, Ex.C-10 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP1 affidavit, Ex.OP2 copy of claim note, Ex.OP-3 copy of policy and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party, 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.

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his four cows for the period from 12.1.2012 to 11.1.2015 from the OP under the policy in question, a copy of which on record is Ex.OP-3. It is also not in dispute that the complainant intimated to the OP about the death of the cow in question bearing chip number 900108000004499.  It is further case of the complainant that unfortunately the cow in question of the complainant bearing tag number 900108000004499  suddenly died on 08.08.2014 during the subsistence of the insurance policy, but grievance of the complainant is that the OP has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the chip number was not readable as the same is in broken condition. It is further contended that the chip in question was got inserted by the OP and the same was also provided by the OP and the complainant has nothing to do with it.  It is further contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that if the chip was of inferior quality which was got inserted by the OP from its agent, then the complainant cannot be made to suffer on that account.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has contended vehemently that the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated on the policy ‘no tag no claim’.   

 

7.             We have very carefully perused the whole of the case file and further perused the live stock claim form, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-1. Ex.C-4 is the copy of certificate issued by the Sarpanch, wherein it has been stated that the cow in question was duly financed by State Bank of Patiala, branch Bhawanigarh, meaning thereby the complainant had purchased the cow in question after raising the loan. Further Ex.C-5 is the copy of post-mortem report which clearly shows that the chip bearing number 900108000004499 was found during post-mortem of the dead cow in question by Dr. Ravi Singla.  Since the complainant has produced sufficient documentary evidence on record to show that the dead cow was insured one with the OP and having the chip number 900108000004499, the claim of the complainant cannot be thrown out. It is worth mentioning here that if the chip in question was of inferior quality and broken and the number was not readable, then the rightful claim of the complainant cannot be rejected/repudiated on this score.  Further the OP has not produced on record the chip in question in its evidence for the bare perusal of this Forum.  There is no explanation from the side of the Op that why they did not produce the chip in question and why the same was withheld by it. Under the circumstances, we feel that the rejection of the claim by the OP on this score is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the complainant has been harassed and compelled to file the present complaint without any reason by the OP.

 

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 the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- being the insurance claim 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. 04.05.2015 till its realisation.  OP is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.15,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs.11,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

10.            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.

                October 7, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member