BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 73 of 2015

Date of Institution: 28.01.2015

Date of Decision: 23.11.2015

Rajvinder kaur widow of Sh.Sakattar Singh, resident of VPO: Timmowal, District Amritsar. 

Complainant

Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited, Dharam Singh Market, D.O.II, Amritsar through its Branch Manager/ Principal Officer.

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 11, 12, 13, 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: For the Complainant: Smt.Ruchika Khanna, Advocate

              For the Opposite Party: Sh.Sandeep Khanna, Advocate

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member     

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Smt.Rajvinder Kaur under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, alleging therein that Sakkattar Singh husband of the complainant got his cow bearing tag No.UTI-8183 aged 4 years, insured with Opposite Party vide  policy No. 112100//47/11/01/00000032 daed 6.5.2011 for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Complainant alleges that Sakattar Singh died on 29.7.2013 and after his death, the complainant being his wife has stepped into shoes.  The insured  cow died on 23.06.2011 and intimation in this regard was given to Opposite Party on 23.06.2011. The complainant had requested the Opposite Party to depute a surveyor for the said purpose. The livestock claim form was also filled and the complainant had supplied all the relevant documents to the Opposite Party. Post mortem of the deceased cow was also conducted by the Veterinary Officer, Civil Veterinary Hospital, Jandiala Guru, Amritsar on 23.06.2011. Thereafter, the Opposite Party had appointed a surveyor, but he did not take any action. The complainant has visited the office of Opposite Party many a times and requested the Opposite Party to pay the claim amount. However, the Opposite Party did not take any step in that regard and kept on delaying the matter and after a long period had verbally repudiated the claim of the complainant on 15.12.2014. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to pay the claim amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant neither given any intimation to the Opposite Party pertaining to the alleged death of cow nor had filed any claim with the Opposite Party regarding the same. So, the complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint and no liability can be fastened to the Opposite Party in this regard. The cow died on 23.6.2011 as alleged and the present complaint has been filed after a long unjustified delay of more than 3 years. The complainant had never requested the Opposite Party to depute a surveyor for the said purpose and never filed Livestock claim form thereto. Moreover, the complainant never supplied any document to the Opposite Party as alleged.   As such, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief claimed for. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Surinder Singh, Divisional Manager Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the case of the complainant is that  Sakattar Singh  husband of the complainant got his cow bearing tag No.UTI-8183, insured with Opposite Party vide  policy No. 112100//47/11/01/00000032 dated 6.5.2011 for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Sakattar Singh died on 29.7.2013 and as such, the present complainant being wife of Sakattar Singh  stepped into the shoes of Sakattar Singh.  Said  cow died on 23.06.2011. Post Mortem  of the dead cow was got conducted on 23.6.2011, certificate in this regard is Ex.OP2. Claim was lodged with the Opposite Party by Sakattar Singh  on 23.6.2011 vide claim form Ex.C4, but the Opposite Party did not settle the claim of the complainant and ultimately verbally repudiated the claim of the complainant on 15.12.2014. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
7. Whereas the case of the Opposite Party is that the complainant had neither given any intimation to the Opposite Party pertaining to the alleged death of cow nor had filed any claim with the Opposite Party regarding the same. The claim form produced by the complainant in this Forum Ex.C4 was never sent to the Opposite Party nor received by the Opposite Party. The complainant has filed the present complaint on 28.1.2015, notice of which was received by the Opposite Party. Then the Opposite Party came to know about the death of the cow in question of the complainant. As such, the present complaint is barred by limitation and the Opposite Party was never informed about the death of the cow nor the Opposite Party was in a position to settle the claim of the complainant. The present complaint is totally false and frivolous one. The cause of action accrued to the complainant on the death of the cow i.e. on 23.6.2011. As such, the present complaint is barred by limitation also. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party  submitted that the Opposite Party was not informed about the death of cow in question nor the complainant has lodged any claim, so there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party. 
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that no doubt, the  cow in question bearing tag No.UTI-8183, insured with Opposite Party vide  policy No. 112100//47/11/01/00000032 dated 6.5.2011 for a sum of Rs.50,000/-, died on 23.6.2011. The complainant submitted that Sakattar Singh  her husband lodged claim with the Opposite Party vide claim form Ex.C4 dated 23.6.2011, but the Opposite Party has categorically denied in their  written version that the complainant never gave any intimation to the Opposite Party regarding the death of cow in question, nor lodged any claim nor submitted any alleged claim form Ex.C4. Opposite Party has also filed an affidavit of Surinder Singh, Divisional Manager of the Opposite Party, Ex.OP1 in this regard. In such circumstances, it becomes the duty of the complainant to prove that the complainant has given any intimation regarding the death of insured cow, to the Opposite Party. The complainant was also duty bound to prove that Sakattar Singh who had already expired, lodged the claim with Opposite Party. It is also the duty of the complainant to prove that the claim form which has been produced in this Forum Ex.C4, has ever been submitted in the office of Opposite Party, particularly when the Opposite Party has specifically denied and in this regard, Opposite Party has  furnished an affidavit of Surinder Singh, Divisional Manger of the Opposite Party Ex.OP1. So, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove on record that any intimation was given by the complainant to the Opposite Party regarding the death of insured cow. The complainant has also failed to prove on record that  Sakattar Singh  deceased husband of the complainant has submitted the claim form with the Opposite Party. Whereas as per the insurance policy, the insured is liable to inform about the loss/ death of the insured animal immediately or as early as possible,  to the Opposite Party and he is liable to furnish all the relevant documents alongwith claim form to the Opposite Party within reasonable time, but the complainant has failed to produce any evidence to prove that the Opposite Party was ever intimated about the death of the cow in question or that Sakattar Singh  deceased husband of the complainant had lodged the claim regarding the death of  cow in question with the Opposite Party. Moreover, the insured cow died on 23.6.2011, the cause of action accrued to the complainant for lodging the claim with the Opposite Party on 23.6.2011, but no claim was lodged with the Opposite Party and the present complaint has been  filed on 28.1.2015 i.e. after a lapse of period of more than 3 ½ years which is also hopelessly barred by limitation.
9. Consequently, we hold that the Opposite Party was justified in not making the payment of any claim regarding the death of said  cow  to the complainant.
10. Resultantly, we hold that that the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 23.11.2015.                                                     (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                 President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member