DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 30/2015
Date of Institution : 05.02.2015
Date of Decision : 10.06.2015
Amrik Singh son of Darshan Singh resident of Pharwahi Kothe Moghedarn de, Tehsil and District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
United India Insurance Company Limited H.O 24 Whites Road, Madras 600 014 through MD.
United India Insurance Company Limited SCO No. 72, Phase-9, Mohali through its area Manager.
United India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Barnala, through its Branch Manager.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. Rajan Chaudhary Advocate counsel for the complainant.
Sh. N.K. Singla Advocate counsel for the opposite parties.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant namely Amrik Singh has filed the complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as Act) against United India Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter called as O.Ps).
2. The brief facts emerging from the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a milky Cow for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- on 20.12.2013 from the cattle fair. The said Cow was medically examined in the presence of the officials of the O.P No. 3 by the Veterinary Doctor and the Cow was declared healthy and free from injury and fully fit vide Health Certificate, which was handed to O.P No. 3 by doctor concerned. The said Cow was insured with the O.Ps and a token No. Cow-78002 dated 13.6.2014 was allotted to the said Cow by the O.P No. 3. The said Cow was insured for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- vide insurance policy dated 13.6.2014. It is alleged that the said Cow died and the death was reported to the Sarpanch of Village Pharwahi. The autopsy of the dead Cow was conducted by doctor vide autopsy report dated 8.7.2014 and cause of death was declared as “Acute Heart Failure”. The death claim of the Cow was submitted to the O.Ps vide claim No. 47/14/01/90000182. However, the O.Ps refused to pay the amount vide letter dated 21.8.2014 on the vague ground that the animal was not healthy at the time of insurance. It was submitted that the objection raised by the O.Ps is vague and wrong on its face value. It is also submitted that the complainant purchased the Cow in question for making his both end meet by selling the milk and it was the only source of income for him. Hence, it was alleged that it is a deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps and therefore the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.
To pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as insured amount.
To pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation.
To pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice of this complaint, the O.Ps appeared and filed written version taking preliminary objections on the grounds of no cause of action or locus standi, jurisdiction, act and conduct, concealment of material facts and non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, the O.Ps have submitted that cattle insurance policy No. 112100/47/14/01/00000105 for the period from 16.6.2014 to 15.6.2015 was purchased by Punjab Livestock Development Board, Sector 17, Chandigarh, for 34 cattle of various persons including the complainant.
4. The Cow belonging to the complainant was sick/ill and was very weak at the time of issuance of Health Certificate and the same was issued by the Veterinary Doctor with malafide intention. The O.Ps denied that the Cow of the complainant was insured for the period from 13.6.2014 upto 12.6.2015 vide any insurance policy. They have also denied that any token No. Cow-78002 dated 13.6.2014 was allotted to the said Cow by the O.P No. 3. The O.Ps further admitted that vide letter No. D.O. Mohali 2014 dated 21.8.2014 the claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that the animal was not healthy at the time of insurance of the said animal. They have also denied any deficiency in service on their part and finally prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, affidavit of Dr. Krishan Kumar Ex.C-2, copy of insurance policy Ex.C-3, copy of postmortem report Ex.C-4, copy of intimation cum claim form Ex.C-5, copy of repudiation letter Ex.C-6 copy of Health Certificate Ex.C-7, and reply to interrogatories in the shape of affidavit of Dr. Krishan Kumar Ex.C-8 and closed his evidence.
6. To rebut the case of the complainant the O.Ps tendered into evidence copy of insurance policy Ex.O.P-1, copy of terms and conditions Ex.O.P-2, photograph Ex.O.P-3, affidavit of Balwinder Singh Ex.O.P-4 and closed the evidence.
7. In order to prove his case the complainant has placed on record his detailed affidavit Ex.C-1, wherein he reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint. To support his case further, the complainant has placed on record the insurance policy Ex.C-3. The perusal of the same shows that this policy was valid from 16.6.2014 to 15.6.2015 and the cattle in question bearing No. ID No. 78002 was insured for Rs. 30,000/-. Ex.C-4 is the postmortem report issued by the Veterinary Officer, which shows that the Cow in question died on 8.7.2014 due to “Acute Heart Failure”. Ex.C-5 is the intimation cum claim form addressed to the O.Ps, which shows that the animal in question died on 8.7.2014 and it was insured for Rs. 30,000/-. Ex.C-7
is the health certificate on the letter pad of O.Ps dated 13.6.2014, which shows that the Cow with token No. 78002 was healthy and free from any injury and fully fit for insurance at above price of Rs. 30,000/-.
8. On the basis of the above said evidence the Ld. Counsel for the complainant contented that the Cow in question was healthy and fit for insurance and the same was insured by the insurance company vide insurance policy No. 112100/47/14/01/00000105. As the Cow in question died due to “Acute Heart Failure” which has been duly proved by the Veterinary Doctor vide postmortem report and therefore the complainant is entitled to the insurance amount of Rs. 30,000/- alongwith interest.
9. To face this situation the Ld. Counsel for the O.Ps contented that the Cow in question was not healthy and fit at the time of issuance of insurance policy and health certificate was issued by the Veterinary Doctor with malafide intention. Moreover, the O.Ps have placed on record interrogatories directing the Veterinary Dr. Krishan Kumar to reply the same in the shape of an affidavit. It is contented that the said doctor has not specifically stated that the Cow in question was fit at the time of taking insurance policy in his affidavit. This contention is untenable. Perusal of Ex.C-8 affidavit of Dr. Krishan Kumar Veterinary Officer (reply to interrogatories) shows that there is nothing to indicate that the Cow was not fit or healthy at the time of taking the policy by the complainant. Moreover, in the affidavit, the said Doctor has specifically stated that on 13.6.2014 he medically checked the Cow in question purchased by Amrik Singh complainant and found the same physically healthy and he therefore issued the health certificate.
10. In view of the above discussion there is a merit in the complaint, therefore, the same is accepted against the O.Ps. Accordingly, the complainant is entitled to the insurance amount of Rs. 30,000/- alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of death of his Cow i.e. 8.7.2014. He is further entitled to Rs. 2,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and Rs. 1,100/- on account of litigation expenses from the O.Ps. This order of ours shall be complied within 60 days from the date of the receipt of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file after its due completion be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
10th Day of June, 2015.
(S.K. Goel)
President.
I do agree.
(Karnail Singh)
Member.
(Vandana Sidhu)
Member.
