BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.95 of 2016

Date of Instt. 25.02.2016

Date of Decision: 07.03.2018

Naresh Kumar aged 55 years son of Sh. Prem Pal resident of Naugajja, Tehsil and District Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. United India Insurance Company Limited (Govt of India Undertaking), Divisional Office, SCO No.72, Phase-9, SAS Nagar (Mohali).

2. Dr. Arunesh Bhatti, PAHS (1) Veterinary Hospital, Naugajja, Tehsil and Distt. Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)

Present: Sh. DS Chhina, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. RK Sharma, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1.

OP No.2 exparte.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint is filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant owned two Cows and he was inspired by OP No.2 to get both the Cows insured and accordingly, the complainant got physical check of both the Cows, which were declared healthy and free from any injury/disease and were fully fit for insurance at the price offered by the OPs and accordingly, both the Cows were got insured for Rs.20,000/-, each and issued insurance cover on 07.12.2013 and complainant paid the requisite premium to the OPs.

2. Unfortunately, without any negligence, fault or deficiency on the part of the OP, both the cows died. One cow died on 13.01.2014, which was black in colour and had been allotted token No.69747. The other Cow died on 14.08.2014. It was black and white in colour with token No.69746. Postmortem on both the corpses of the Cows were performed by the OP No.2 on the dates mentioned above. It is submitted that the complainant contacted the OP No.2 to get the insured amount, but the OP No.2 had been assuring the complainant, but he did not to do any thing tangible in the matter. He was approached by the complainant to give certified copy of the postmortem reports, but he failed to supply the postmortem reports. At long last the complainant had to approach Deputy Director Animal Husbandry Jalandhar under the RTI Act through his counsel. The said Deputy Director, vide his office order No.202 dated 19.01.2016 supplied certified copies of the postmortem reports of both the animals. The OPs have failed to pay the insured amount to the complainant. The complainant also suffered loss due to the death of the Cows. The OPs are guilty of deficiency in service as defined in the 'Consumer Protection Act'. The damages caused to the complainant due to the death of the Cows runs to Rs.60,000/-, besides the insurance amount of Rs.40,000/- and then the complainant served a legal notice dated 26.02.2015, to the OP, but all in vain and accordingly, the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay insured money of Rs.40,000/- and compensation of Rs.60,000/- by way of deficiency in service in total being Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.2 did not come present and ultimately, OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering OP No.1 as the complainant has concealed material facts from the Forum and has not come before Forum with clean hands. The complainant earlier tried to cheat the answering OP No.1 and now misleading this Forum. The contention of the complainant that the complainant received copies of the Postmortem of the Cows for the first time on 19.01.2016 under RTI Act is wrong and incorrect in view of the fact that the complainant had already lodged claim by intimating the loss and submitting postmortem report fraudulently alleging that the death of insured Cow bearing Tag No.69747 with the answering OP No.1 by way of manipulation and implanting some other dead cow as insured cow with Tag No.69747. The spot inspection was conducted on 13.01.2014 by Sh. Pritpal Singh, Surveyor and Loss Assessor and submitted his Cattle Spot Inspection Report dated 22.02.2014 with the answering OP No.1 with photographs of the dead Cow and during the processing of claim, it was found that the dead Cow was not matching with the insured Cow, the OP No.1 deputed Dr. SC Aneja for his expert opinion and investigation into the matter, who submitted his report dated 10.09.2014 opining that claimed dead cow and insured cow are not matching with each other and making the claim to be falsely lodged claim and recommended for rejection of the claim. The OP No.1 in view of the investigation report dated 10.09.2014, closed the claim as No Claim and the complainant was informed, vide letter dated 17.09.2014 accordingly. The insured Cow with Tag No.69747 was with Horns and the claim lodged with the respect to dead cow was dehorned. The insured was totally black, whereas the claim lodged with the respect to dead cow was with white patches etc. The complainant has not lodged any claim with regard to insured cow with Tag No.67746, as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed and further averred that the complainant cannot take advantage of his own wrongs, as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the ownership of two Cows is reply in the manner that it is a matter of record and getting the insurance of both Cows by the complainant is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant himself tendered into evidence documents Ex. C-2 Copy of Application, Ex.C-3 Copy of Insurance Policy, Ex.C-4 Copy of Postmortem Report, Ex.C-5 Copy of Postmortem, Ex.C-6 Information provided by Dy. Director Animal Husbandry, Jalandhar, Ex.C-7 Application dated 09.12.2015, Ex.C-8 is application under RTI dated 21.10.2015, Ex.C-9 Copy of Voucher and further complainant tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Legal Notice as Ex.C-10 and Postal Receipt Ex.C-11 and then closed his evidence.

5. Similarly, counsel for OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Jaspal Singh as Ex.OA alongwith documents Ex.O-1 to Ex.O-8 and then evidence of OP No.1 closed by order on 13.06.2017.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

7. After taking into consideration the entire facts as elaborated in the respective pleading of both the parties, we find that the issuing of insurance of both the cows, is not denied by the OP No.1, rather OP No.1 alleged that the complainant submitted an insurance claim only in regard to one Cow with Tag No.69747, but the said claim of the complainant found false and accordingly, the same was rejected, whereas the complainant has not lodged any claim with regard to insured cow with Tag No.67746 and in order to make justify the rejection of the claim of the complainant, OP No.1 has brought on the file affidavit of Jaspal Singh as Ex.OA and further tendered into evidence copy of Insurance Policy of both the Cows i.e. Ex.O-1, wherein the insured amount of each cow has been mentioned as Rs.20,000/- each cow and further the description of the animal has been also mentioned in the report Ex.O-2 and OP also produced on the file photographs of the animal Ex.O-3 and Intimation-cum-Claim Form Ex.O-4 and Postmortem Certificate of one Cow is Ex.O-5 and Report of Surveyor Pritpal Singh Ex.O-6 and Report of Dr. S.C. Aneja Ex.O-7 and mainly relying upon the report of Surveyor Pritpal Singh and Dr. SC Aneja, the claim of the complainant in regard to one Cow having Tag No.69747 was rejected by the complainant, on the ground that the identification mark of the insured Cow is not tally with the dead Cow. We find that the report of the Surveyor Ex.O-6 as well as report Ex.O-7 of Dr. SC Aneja are disclosing that the identification mark of both the Cows i.e. insured and dead are not matching with each other, but we have to match the identification of each Cow from the relevant document i.e. Ex.O-2 description of the animal as well as postmortem report and if we go through the document showing description of the animal Ex.O-2 and find that the identification mark of the Cow given in this description report is virtually tally with the postmortem report Ex.O-5, the postmortem report Ex.O-5 does not disclose the tag number of the Cow and the said column is blank, the colour of the Cow having Tag No.69747 is black as shown in the description of the animal and similar colour is shown in the postmortem report and age is also shown 5 year in both the documents and eyes also shown black in both the documents. So, when all the features of the Cows are matching with each other on both the documents Ex.O-2 and Ex.O-5, then we can say without any hesitation that the reports given by the Surveyor as well as Investigator are basis on the sweet will of the OP, because the OP has to pay them the charges for the work done by them.

8. So for the allegation of the OP No.1 that the complainant has not lodged any claim with regard to insured Cow with a Tag No.67746, we find this is mere a denial to pay the insured amount, because the insurance claim has been always filed by the insured person and its copy never retained and then it is the sweet will of the Insurance Company to produce the Claim Form or to deny that the insured has never applied for that, similar seems to has been happened in this case.

9. Apart from above, if we accept the version of the OP, even then the complainant gave a legal notice on 26.02.2015, but after getting a notice, the OP No.1 can put on motion the insurance claim of the second Cow, but the OP No.1 with malafide intention did not initiate any proceeding regarding that insurance claim. So, the version of the OP No.1 that the complainant never applied for insurance claim of cow with Tag No.67746, is not true version and ultimately, we reach to the conclusion that the OP No.1 malafidely, intentionally and without any reason and rhyme rejected the insurance claim of both the Cows of the complainant, which is apparently a deficiency in service on the part of the OP and accordingly, we reach to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed.

10. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted qua OP No.1 and complaint against OP No.2 is dismissed being without merit and further OP No.1 is directed to pay the insured amount of both the Cows i.e. Rs.40,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing complaint i.e. 25.02.2016, till realization and OP No.1 is further directed to pay compensation to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.20,000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh

07.03.2018 Member President