BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 74 of 2015

Date of Institution: 28.01.2015

Date of Decision: 23.11.2015

Tajinder Singh son of Daljit Singh resident of village: Bhorsi Rajputan, Tehsil: Baba Bakala, 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 Sh.Tajinder Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, alleging therein that he got his cow bearing tag No.United-14678 aged 6 years, insured with Opposite Party vide  policy No. 200204/47/09/01/0000001 for a sum of Rs.60,000/-. Complainant alleges that said insured cow died on 26.10.2011 and intimation in this regard was given to Opposite Party on 26.10.2011. 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 26.10.2011. 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 of 3 years had verbally repudiated the claim of the complainant on 28.11.2014. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to pay the claim amount of Rs.60,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum till date. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complaint is not maintainable being based on a false and concocted version of the complainant altogether. The cow bearing tag No.United-14678 as alleged was not at all insured with Opposite Party vide policy in question. In fact, the said policy pertains to 5 cows bearing tag Nos.19188, 19196, 19170, 19116 and 19114, hence the cow bearing tag No.14678 not being covered under the policy in question, so no liability can be fastened to the Opposite Party. 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.C6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Surinder Singh, Divisional Manager Ex.OP1 alongwith copy of insurance cover note Ex.OP2 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  he got his cow bearing tag No.United-14678, insured with Opposite Party vide  policy No. 200204/47/09/01/0000001 (Ex.OP2) for a sum of Rs.60,000/-. Complainant submitted that said insured cow died on 26.10.2011 and intimation was given in this regard to Opposite Party on 27.10.2011 vide claim form Ex.C3. Post mortem of the deceased cow was also conducted, copy of which is Ex.C2. Letter was also written to State Bank of Patiala, Mana Wala, Financier on 27.10.2011 Ex.C6 who also sent the said letter to the Opposite Party vide their letter dated 27.10.2011 Ex.C5, but the Opposite Party did not settle the claim of the complainant and ultimately verbally repudiated the claim of the complainant on 28.11.2014. 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 cow bearing tag No.United-14678 as alleged by the complainant was not at all insured with Opposite Party vide policy No. 200204/47/09/01/0000001 (Ex.OP2) nor the complainant had ever filed the requisite documents/ claim form with the Opposite Party, so the Opposite Party was not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant regarding the death of the aforesaid cow under the policy in question.  Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that 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 the complainant has alleged that his cow bearing tag No.United-14678 was insured with Opposite Party vide  policy No. 200204/47/09/01/0000001 (Ex.OP2) for a sum of Rs.60,000/- and said cow died on 26.10.2011. The complainant lodged the claim with the Opposite Party vide claim form Ex.C3 dated 26.10.2011. The complainant did not file any policy or cover note of the policy whereas the Opposite Party has produced on record the policy bearing No.  200204/47/09/01/0000001 (Ex.OP2), vide which 5 cows bearing tag Nos.19188, 19196, 19170, 19116 and 19114 of the complainant were insured with the Opposite Party and this cow bearing tag No. United-14678 was not insured with the Opposite Party. So, the Opposite Party was not liable to pay any claim regarding the death of said cow bearing  tag No.United-14678 because the same was not insured with the Opposite Party under the policy in question. So, no deficiency of service  can be attributed to the Opposite Party.   
9. 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