DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 48/2015
Date of Institution : 09.03.2015
Date of Decision : 17.07.2015
Baldeep Singh aged about 20 years son of Sh. Teja Singh, resident of Village Amla Singh Wala, Post Office Bhadalwad, Tehsil and District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, S.C.O No. 72, Phase 9, 2nd Floor, SAS Nagar Mohali-160062, through its Divisional Manager/Authorized Signatory.
United India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, Post Box No. 59, Dhanaula Road, Barnala, District Barnala, through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. Gurpreetpal Singh counsel for complainant.
Sh. B.S. Gupta counsel for opposite parties.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(BY SHRI KARNAIL SINGH MEMBER):
The complainant namely Baldeep Singh has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as Act) against United India Insurance Company Limited and others (hereinafter called as the opposite parties) on the ground that the complainant being the owner of two “H.F. Cross Breed Cows, got those Cows insured from the opposite party No. 1 each, for the amount of Rs. 50,000/-. The insurance regarding the aforesaid Cows was commenced on 13.6.2014, which has to be expired on 12.6.2015. It is further alleged that before the commencement of insurance, the opposite party No. 1 got the Health Checkup of aforesaid Cows and the same was conducted by Veterinary Officer-cum-Incharge, Civil Veterinary Hospital, Sekha, District Barnala, and regarding the same Health Certificate was issued by the Veterinary Officer on 13.6.2014. It is further alleged that vide Health Certificate, it was certified by the Veterinary Officer that the above Cows are healthy and free from any injury/disease and fully fit for insurance of Rs. 50,000/- each. Accordingly, Tag/Token No. 78023 and 78024 were allotted to both the Cows. The Cow having Tag/Token No. 78024 was having black and white colour and age of about 3 ½ years.
2. It is further alleged that unfortunately the Cow having Tag/Token No. 78024 was died on 20.7.2014 at Village Amla Singh Wala, District Barnala, due to Acute Heart Failure and after its death, its postmortem was conducted by Veterinary Officer-cum-Incharge, Civil Veterinary Hospital, Sekha, District Barnala on the same day. Thereafter, the intimation-cum-claim form was submitted by the complainant to the opposite party No. 1 after completing all the requisite formalities alongwith token of the died Cow, for taking the insurance claim of Rs. 50,000/- vide claim No. 47/14/01/90000295. But the opposite party No. 1 vide its letter No. 2408 dated 26.9.2014 repudiated the insurance claim of the complainant on the ground that the Cow was not healthy at the commencement of said insurance. The complainant number of times approached the opposite parties for disbursing the claim amount, but of no use. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.
To disburse the aforementioned insurance claim amount of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith interest.
To pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation.
To pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice the opposite parties appeared and filed written version taking legal objections on the grounds of no cause of action or locus standi, complaint is frivolous and vexatious, concealment of material facts etc. On merits, the opposite parties are admitted to the extent that the Cows bearing Tag No. 78023 and 78024 were insured by them. It is also admitted that the Cows were insured from 16.6.2014 to 15.6.2015. It is averred that the complainant in connivance with the Veterinary Doctor, provided wrong Health Certificate of Cow bearing Tag No. 78024 and the opposite parties believing the Health Certificate issued by the doctor, issued the insurance cover note of the Cow bearing Tag No. 78024 alongwith Cows bearing Tag No. 78023. Whereas, at the time of insurance the health of the Cow was not sound and prefect. The condition mentioned in the insurance policy is as under:-
“every animal must be sound and in perfect health and free from any injury at the time of the proposal for insurance or for any renewal, addition or substitution and must also remain sound and be in perfect health and free from any injury at the time of payment of the premium or balance thereof”.
4. It is further averred that the opposite parties appointed a competent investigator Dr. Amarjit Singh, who examined the photographs of the Cow bearing Tag No. 78024 before disbursement of the claim by the opposite parties and submitted his detailed investigation report. As per the opinion of the Doctor Amarjit Singh Dhillon, (a) Emaciated, as rib cage is clearly visible, which happens when animal is under fed or sick; (b) The udder size visible in the photograph does not support high milk yield of ten liters plus. On the report/opinion of Dr. Amarjit Singh Dhillon, Mohali, the opposite parties repudiated the claim of the complainant after mentioning the reasons as under:-
“Animal not fit for insurance hence claim filed as no claim”.
5. It is further averred that the complainant lodged his claim with the opposite parties on 13.8.2014, whereas the Cow was died on 20.7.2014. The complainant is not entitled for any amount of Rs. 50,000/- on account of claim, nor complainant is entitled for any compensation on account of suffering physical pain, mental agony from the opposite parties. The opposite parties denied any deficiency in service on their part and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
6. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of health certificate Ex.C-2, copy of postmortem report Ex.C-3, copy of intimation-cum claim form Ex.C-4, copy of repudiation letter Ex.C-5, photograph of died cow Ex.C-6, copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.C-7 and closed his evidence.
7. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Balwinder Singh Senior Divisional Manager Ex.O.P1, copy of policy for the period 16.6.2014 to 15.6.2015 Ex.O.P2, intimation letter dated 13.8.2014 Ex.O.P3, photographs of Cow Ex.O.P4 to Ex.O.P6, copy of expert opinion of Dr. Amarjit Singh Dhillon Ex.O.P7, copy of letter dated 30.3.2015 Ex.O.P8. Copy of repudiated claim letter Ex.O.P9 and closed the evidence.
8. We have gone through the documents placed on record by both the parties and heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties at length.
9. In order to prove his case the complainant has placed on record his detailed affidavit Ex.C-1. Further, the complainant has placed on record the copy of health certificate Ex.C-2 issued by the Veterinary Officer, Veterinary Civil Hospital, Sekha, of Cows bearing Tag Nos. 78023 and 78024, wherein, it is mentioned that the above said animals are healthy and free from any injury/disease and fully fit for insurance at the above price. Further, the complainant in support of his complaint has tendered into evidence Ex.C-3, the copy of postmortem report of Veterinary Officer, who conducted the postmortem of Cow bearing Tag No. 78024 and gave his opinion that the said Cow had died due to “Acute Heart Failure”. Further, copy of intimation cum claim form Ex.C-4 addressed to the opposite parties, which shows that the animal in question died on 20.7.2014 and it was insured for Rs. 50,000/-.
10. On the other hand, the opposite parties in order to rebut the case of complainant have tendered into evidence affidavit of Balwinder Singh Senior Divisional Manager Ex.O.P1, which is word to word repetition of the version filed by the opposite parties. Further, copy of insurance policy Ex.O.P2, wherein the name of complainant Baldeep Singh and Tag number of his Cow 78024 are mentioned at Serial No. 29 and it is also mentioned that the above Cow was insured for Rs. 50,000/-. We have gone through the insurance policy Ex.O.P2, which shows that the Cow of complainant bearing Tag No. 78024 was insured for Rs. 50,000/- and the policy was valid from 16.6.2014 to 15.6.2015. It is not in dispute that the Cow of the complainant was died on 20.7.2014 and the same is proved by the postmortem report of Veterinary Officer Ex.C-3.
11. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued 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.
12. We have minutely gone through the evidence tendered by both the parties and are of the view that the opposite parties have failed to rebut the case of the complainant that the cow in question bearing Tag No. 78024 was not healthy at the time of insurance, by bringing on record any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence.
13. In view of the above discussion there is a merit in the complaint, therefore, the same is accepted against the opposite parties. Accordingly, the complainant is entitled to the insurance amount of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of death of his Cow i.e. 20.7.2014. He is further entitled to Rs. 3,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and Rs. 2,100/- on account of litigation expenses from the opposite parties. This order of ours shall be complied within 30 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:
17th Day of July, 2015.
(S.K. Goel)
President.
(Karnail Singh)
Member.
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member.
