DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 139/2015
Date of Institution : 03.07.2015
Date of Decision : 15.12.2015
Jagroop Singh S/o Mukand Singh, resident of Sanghera Road, Street No. 1, House No. B-V-1240, Barnala, Tehsil & District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Dhuri Road, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.
Dr. Ram Kumar (Veterinary Surgeon) C/o Sangrur PetVet Care, Dhuri Road, Sangrur, District Sangrur.
Dr. Sukhwinder Singh Mann (Senior Veterinary Officer), Veterinary Hospital, Near Chintu Park, Barnala, District Barnala.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. R.K. Singla counsel for complainant.
Sh. N.K. Garg counsel for opposite party No.1
The opposite party No. 2 deleted.
The opposite party No. 3 exparte.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
Sh. Karnail Singh : Member.
Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member.
ORDER
(BY SHRI S.K. GOEL, PRESIDENT):
The complainant namely Jagroop 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).
2. The facts emerging from the present complaint are that the complainant is doing the business of selling milk to earn his livelihood through self employment. He has purchased one insurance policy from the opposite party No. 1 for his Cow on 12.7.2010 for three years i.e. from 12.7.2010 to 11.7.2013 and paid the premium. The opposite parties No. 2 & 3 checked the said Cow at Barnala and found fit for insurance. Thereafter, the opposite parties issued the policy for the said Cow for an amount of Rs. 50,000/-. A chip No. 0006F2C0F6 was affixed on the said Cow by the opposite parties No. 1 & 3. The opposite parties No. 2 & 3 are the representative of the opposite parties No. 1.
3. It is further averred that the said Cow suffered with an ailment and on this the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 for her treatment. The opposite party No. 2 gave treatment, but ultimately the said Cow died on 9.9.2012. It is further averred that the complainant and the opposite party No. 2 immediately informed the opposite parties No. 1 & 3. On this, the opposite party No. 3 visited the spot and took chip of the said Cow, photographs and prepared a CD. The opposite party No. 2 conducted the postmortem and prepared the postmortem report. The claim form was prepared by the opposite party No. 3 and all the desired documents were supplied by the complainant to the opposite party No. 3. It is further averred that the complainant also gave in writing to the opposite party No. 1 to settle the claim of the complainant, which was duly received by their office. It is further averred that the opposite party No. 3 removed the said chip from the said Cow and took Valuation Certificate, Sarpanch Certificate and claim form to settle the said claim as representative of the opposite party No. 1. It is further averred that the complainant approached the opposite parties many a times to settle the claim. However, the opposite parties avoided the complainant on one pretext or the other. Thus, it is alleged that the act of the opposite parties is clearly a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.
To pay the amount of Rs. 50,000/- i.e. insured amount alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of death of Cow i.e. 9.9.2012.
To pay Rs. 30,000/- as compensation.
To pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 1 filed a written version taking legal objections interalia on the grounds of locus-standi, jurisdiction, maintainability and misuse of process of law. On merits, it is averred that the information regarding the claim was never given by the complainant. Even the claim was never lodged with them and it was never repudiated by them at any point of time. Moreover, the complainant never submitted his bank details at any point of time. They have denied the other allegations of the complainant and finally prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
5. The opposite party No. 2 Dr. Ram Kumar (Veterinary Surgeon) C/o Sangrur PetVet Care, Dhuri Road, Sangur is deleted vide order dated 24.9.2015.
6. The opposite party No. 3 Dr. Sukhwinder Singh Mann (Senior Veterinary Officer) has filed written version stating therein that the Cow in question was checked by him and was found fit for insurance by him. He further submitted that the complainant informed the answering opposite party regarding the death of the Cow and the postmortem of the dead Cow was conducted by him on 9.9.2012. Report of the postmortem was given to the complainant on the same day. However, he has denied any deficiency in service on his part and finally prayed for the dismissal of complaint against him. However, the opposite party No. 3 is proceeded against exparte vide order dated 8.12.2015 due to non appearance.
7. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of insurance policy Ex.C-2, copy of intimation letter Ex.C-3, copy of postmortem report Ex.C-4, copy of Sarpanch report Ex.C-5, copy of Valuation Certificate Ex.C-6, copy of claim form as Ex.C-7 & Ex.C-8 and closed his evidence.
8. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite party No. 1 tendered into evidence copy of letter dated 9.9.2012 Ex.O.P1/1, copy of Certificate of Sarpanch Ex.O.P1/2, copy of policy Ex.O.P1/3 and closed the evidence.
9. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents.
10. There is no dispute regarding the issuance of insurance policy Ex.C-2 by the opposite party No. 1. Perusal of the same shows that this policy was issued at Barnala and the Cow in question with ID No. 0006F2C0F6 at Serial No. 5 has been duly insured for Rs. 50,000/-and the period of insurance is mentioned as 12.7.2010 to 11.7.2013. Apart from the said insurance policy, the complainant has also relied upon the Veterinary Certificate Ex.C-8 issued by the Veterinary Officer (the opposite party No. 3) stating the description of the animal. Moreover, in the written version filed by the opposite party No. 3 in Para 3 he has specifically admitted that the Cow in question was examined by him and was found fit for insurance.
11. On the other hand, the opposite party No. 1 has not specifically denied the insurance policy and the fitness of the Cow in question at the time of obtaining the policy.
12. Now the next question arises whether the Cow in question died in the period of insurance. To prove this plea, the complainant has specifically stated in his affidavit Ex.C-1 that the Cow suffered with an ailment and then he approached the opposite party No. 2 for her treatment, but the Cow died on 9.9.2012. He further stated in his affidavit that the opposite party No. 3 visited the spot and took the chip of the said Cow, photographs and prepared a CD. He further stated that the opposite party No. 2 conducted the postmortem and prepared the postmortem report. This plea is also supported by the document Ex.C-3, which is the intimation letter given to the United India Insurance Company by the complainant stating therein that the Cow in question died on 9.9.2012 and this letter based the date as 9.9.2012. Ex.C-4 is the postmortem certificate issued by Dr. Sukhwinder Singh Mann (the opposite party No. 3) on the same day i.e. 9.9.2012. The postmortem certificate Ex.C-4 clearly mentioned the description of the Cow in question and the Tag/Chip No. 0006F2C0F6. In the written version filed by the opposite party No. 3, he has specifically stated that he conducted the postmortem of the Cow in question on 9.9.2012 and he proved the postmortem report Ex.C-3. Moreover, the insurance company (the opposite party No. 1) has not taken any specific plea questioning the death of the Cow in question and the postmortem. Therefore, this question is answered in favour of the complainant.
13. Now the third question arises whether the complainant intimated the opposite party No. 1 immediately regarding the death of the Cow in question. In his affidavit Ex.C-1, the complainant has specifically stated that all the desired documents were supplied by the complainant to the opposite party No. 3 and also gave in writing to the opposite party No. 1 to settle the claim. Ex.C-3 is the letter of intimation given by the complainant to the DM of the United India Insurance Company, wherein he clearly mentioned the death of the Cow in question on 9.9.2012 with policy No. 111700/47/10/01/00000222 and it bears the date as 9.9.2012. There is also one Certificate on the letter pad of United India Insurance Company Ex.C-5 dated 9.9.2012 indicating the death of the Cow on 9.9.2012 with Tag No. 0006F2C0F6. Even the opposite party No. 1 has failed to tender in evidence the affidavit of the concerned Manager to rebut the pleas taken by the complainant or to controvert the plea that the insurance company was duly informed. Moreover, there is nothing on record to indicate that the opposite party No. 1 was not approached by the complainant for the settlement of claim.
14. In view of the above discussion, there is a merit in the complaint. Therefore, the complaint is accepted against the opposite party No. 1. Accordingly, the opposite party No. 1 is directed to pay the insurance amount of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of death of Cow i.e. 9.9.2012. The opposite party No. 1 is further directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,100/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. This order shall be complied within 45 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:
15th Day of December, 2015.
(S.K. Goel)
President.
(Karnail Singh)
Member.
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member.
