DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Consumer Complaint No. 245/2014.
Date of institution: 7.11.2014.
Date of decision: 27.4.2015.
Jagdeep Singh, aged about 45 years, son of Nand Singh, resident of Village Tallewal, Tehsil Tapa, District Barnala.
...Complainant
Versus
United India Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office, SCO 72, Phase-9, S.A.S. Nagar Mohali, through its Director/Manager.
...Opposite Party
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: -
1. Sh. Sukhpal Singh Gill : President
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
For the complainant : Sh. Ramandeep Rajput, Advocate.
For the opposite party : Sh. N.K. Garg, Advocate.
ORDER: BY SUKHPAL SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT:
Jagdeep Singh complainant (herein referred as to CC for short) has preferred the present complaint against the Opposite Party (herein referred as to O.P for short), on the ground that, on 9.4.2012 CC had insured his three cows for Rs. 50,000/- each, with the O.P, in consideration of the required premium amount of Rs. 1,000/- per cow.
It is alleged that, Health Certificate was duly issued by the Veterinary Officer, Dr. Lakhvir Singh, after checking up the cows at his village Tallewal. Three token numbers were also given to the above mentioned three cows.
It is further alleged that, on 28.4.2014 suddenly one cow having token No. 76774, had died and the matter was reported immediately to the O.P. Accordingly, the O.P sent its surveyor namely Des Raj at the spot, who had done the necessary inquiry and taken the original policy and required documents, from the CC. It is alleged that, the surveyor of the O.P assured the CC that, the claim will be given within very short period. The photographs of the dead cow were also taken at the spot, which were duly verified by the surveyor. It is further alleged that, the postmortem of the dead cow was also conducted at Civil Veterinary Hospital, Bhadaur.
It is specifically alleged that, the claim has not been given to the CC till today. It is further alleged that, on 4.7.2014 the required documents were again sent to the O.P, as the O.P alleging that the claim file has been misplaced.
The grievance of the CC is that, despite giving the intimation and submission of required documents, nothing had been done by the O.P. CC has also sent three letters to the O.P, with a request to release the insured amount as per terms and conditions of the policy, but of no use.
Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP, CC has sought the following reliefs against the O.P.
(a) O.P be directed to give the claim amount of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum.
(b) O.P further be directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation and Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses.
The complaint of the CC is duly signed, verified and also supported by a detailed affidavit of the CC.
2. In reply, O.P has raised a number of legal objections on the ground that, CC has got no cause of action or locus-standi to file the present complaint. Further, complaint is false and frivolous and is also challenged on the point of maintainability.
On merits, it is averred that, cow having token No. 76774 was insured on 25.4.2014 with the O.P and the insurance policy was valid from 25.4.2014 to 24.4.2015. It is specifically submitted that, as per terms and conditions of the policy and remarks duly mentioned therein, claim cannot be given, if insured cow died within 15 days from the date of policy. It is submitted that, the cow having token No. 76774 was expired on 28.4.2014, whereas the cow was insured on 25.4.2014 and as per terms and conditions of the policy, the period of 15 days was expired on 9.5.2014, hence the CC is not entitled to any claim of insurance from the O.P and on this sole ground the claim of the insurance of the CC has been repudiated.
It is further averred that, no documents were ever submitted by the CC at any point of time with the O.P. Further, CC in connivance with the reporter of the news paper, got published the news of harassment just to extract money from the O.P. All other allegations of the CC are denied.
Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on its part, O.P has prayed for the dismissal of complaint. The version of the O.P is signed by the Advocate.
3. The CC in support of his complaint has tendered into evidence Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13, which included his own affidavit, copy of health certificate, copy of postmortem report, photographs, copies of application, postal receipt, newspaper and an affidavit of Boota Singh and has closed his evidence.
4. On the other hand Advocate for O.P in support of its version has tendered into evidence Ex.O.P1 to Ex.O.P3, which included copy of repudiation letter dated 19.11.2014, copy of intimation dated 27.11.2014, copy of surveyor report dated 12.12.2014 and has closed the evidence.
5. We have minutely perused the entire complaint, version filed by the OP and evidence of parties and also heard Counsel for the parties at length.
6. It is an admitted fact that, cow of the CC bearing token No 76774 was insured with the O.P vide policy No. 112100/47/14/01/00000030, for Rs. 50,000/-, which is Ex.C-2. Further, it is also admitted fact that, the cow of the CC, died during the validity of the insurance policy, which was valid from 25.4.2014 to 24.4.2015. It is also admitted that, O.P repudiated the claim of the CC.
The O.P has repudiated the claim of the CC mainly on the ground that, the cow of the CC was insured on 25.4.2014 and as per terms and conditions of this policy the period of 15 days expired on 9.5.2014, hence the CC is not entitled to any claim of insurance from the O.P, so as per terms and conditions of the policy, O.P repudiated the claim of the cow of the CC. But to prove its version, O.P brought nothing on record. Even, no terms and conditions of the policy are brought on record by the O.P, in support of his allegation.
To prove his case, CC tendered copy of insurance policy Ex.C-2, in which name of the CC is mentioned against token No. 76774, which shows that, the cow was duly insured with the O.P. Further, he has tendered postmortem report Ex.C-3, of the cow bearing tag no. 76774. He also tendered copies of applications alongwith postal receipts, which were sent to the O.P, for taking the claim of his insured cow bearing tag No. 76774.
On the other hand O.P in support of its version tendered Ex.O.P1 and Ex.O.P2, wherein, it is mentioned that, claim are not within 15 days of policy, hence claim treated as “no claim”, but the O.P has failed to bring on record any terms and conditions of the policy in support of these documents. We are of the opinion that, the claim of the CC is rejected absolutely on 'flimsy grounds'. There is no cogent, reliable and confidence inspiring evidence brought on record by the O.P, in support of its version.
On the other hand, evidence of the CC appears to be cogent, reliable and trustworthy. Further, we are of the view that, O.P has acted with pre-determined mind with the sole intention, to defeat the genuine claim of the CC.
In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, we allow the present complaint and order the OP, to pay the amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the CC alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint till its realization. We further order the OP to pay a consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-, for causing physical and mental harassment to him and also dragging him into unwanted litigation.
This order of ours shall be complied within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. The file after its due completion be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
27th Day of April 2015
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President.
I do agree.
(Karnail Singh)
Member.
Vandna Sidhu
(Member)
