DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 142/2015
Date of Institution : 03.07.2015
Date of Decision : 1.12.2015
Nazar Singh S/o Amrik Singh, resident of Chananwala Road, Village Kalala, Tehsil Tapa, District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
United India Insurance Company Limited, SCO No. 72, Phase-9, SAS Nagar, Mohali-160059 through its Branch Manager.
Dr. Karamjit Singh (Veterinary Officer), Veterinary Hospital, Thulliwal, Tehsil and District Barnala.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. R.K. Singla counsel for complainant.
Sh. N.K. Singla counsel for opposite party No.1
The opposite party No. 2 exparte.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(BY SHRI S.K. GOEL, PRESIDENT):
The complainant namely Nazar 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 purchased an insurance policy for his three Cows from the opposite party No. 1 through opposite party No. 2 on 22.1.2015 for one year and paid the premium as per Government policy. The opposite party No. 2 examined the said Cows at Kalala, District Barnala and found fit for insurance. Thereafter, the opposite parties issued policy for the said Cows for an amount of Rs. 40,000/- each. As per health certificate and description of animal, Token numbers indicating 84322, 84323 and 84324 were affixed on the said Cows by the opposite party No. 2 being representative of opposite party No. 1.
3. It is alleged that the Cow Token No. 84322 became ill and therefore the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 for her treatment. The opposite party No. 2 gave treatment but ultimately on 27.2.2015 the said cow died. The complainant immediately informed the opposite parties. On this, the opposite party No. 2 alongwith surveyor of opposite party No. 1 visited the spot and took the Tag and photographs of the said Cow and prepared a CD & recorded the statement of Paramjit Singh Nambardar of the Village Kalala. Moreover, the opposite party No. 2 conducted the postmortem and prepared the postmortem report. The claim form was prepared by the opposite party No. 2 and all the desired documents were supplied by the complainant to the opposite parties. The opposite party No. 2 also removed the said tag from the said Cow and took valuation certificate and claim form was filled by the opposite party No. 2 to settle the claim as representative of opposite party No. 1. Moreover, the opposite party No. 2 assured the complainant that he will supply all the documents to the opposite party No. 1 to settle the claim and the claim would be paid to him. Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite parties many times to settle the claim. However, the opposite parties avoided the complainant on one pretext or the other. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.
To pay the amount of Rs. 40,000/- i.e. insured amount alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of death of Cow i.e. 27.2.2015.
To pay Rs. 40,000/- 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 on the grounds of cause of action or locus-standi, jurisdiction, complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, the insurance company has admitted the Insurance Policy No. 112100/47/14/01/00000441 for the period from 27.1.2015 to 26.1.2016 in respect of the Cows bearing ID/Token numbers 84322 to 84324, which were insured for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each. However, it is denied that the cow bearing ID/Token No. 84322 suffered from any ailment and ultimately died on 27.2.2015. They have also denied that they ever deputed any Surveyor to visit the spot to check the alleged cow. They have also denied that the opposite party No. 2 is the representative of opposite party No. 1. They have further denied that the complainant has ever lodged any claim with them. Rather, as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, it was the duty of the insured to give immediate notice in writing to the opposite party No. 1 of any illness or injury to any animal and to surrender the tag of the dead animal. The other allegations of the complainant are denied and finally prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
5. The opposite party No. 2 also filed a separate written version taking preliminary objections on the ground of maintainability. On merits, it is averred that he is working as Veterinary Officer at Civil Veterinary Hospital, Thulliwal. The complainant alongwith Baljit Sharma the agent of the opposite party No. 1 requested him to conduct the Health Checkup and issue Health Certificate of three cows of the complainant and therefore he issued health certificate dated 22.1.2015 and the health certificate was handed over to Mr. Baljit Sharma for issuance of insurance policy. It is further averred that the premium amount of insurance was duly given to Mr. Baljit Sharma by the complainant and the animals were tagged with token numbers indicating 84322, 84323 and 84324. The opposite party No. 2 further submitted that the cow Token No. 84322 suffered an ailment and he treated the same, but ultimately on 27.2.2015 the said Cow died. The postmortem was conducted by him. He further submitted that the claim documents pertaining to said Cow and postmortem report was taken by Des Raj surveyor/investigator of Barnala of opposite party No. 1. Therefore, he requested that the complaint be dismissed against him. However, the opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 31.8.2015 due to non appearance.
6. 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 health certificate Ex.C-3 & Ex.C-4, copy of claim form Ex.C-5, copy of postmortem report Ex.C-6 & Ex.C-7, copy of claim form Ex.C-8, copy of statements Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10 and closed his evidence.
7. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite party No. 1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Balwinder Singh Ex.O.P1/1, copy of insurance policy Ex.O.P1/2 and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and have gone through the documents.
9. There is no dispute regarding the issuance of insurance policy by the opposite party No. 1 Ex.C-2. Perusal of the same shows that this policy was issued at Barnala and the cows of complainant with ID Nos. 84322, 84323 and 84324 have been duly insured for Rs. 40,000/- each and the period of insurance mentioned 27.1.2015 to 26.1.2016. The cow in question is of Token No. 84322. Apart from insurance policy, the complainant has also relied upon the health certificate Ex.C-3 issued by the Veterinary Officer (the opposite party No. 2) stating the description of the animal and arriving at the conclusion that the above said animals were healthy and free from any injury/disease and fully fit for insurance. Moreover, in the written version filed by the opposite party No. 2, he clearly admitted the health certificate of the cow in question. Besides this the complainant has also relied upon intimation cum claim form Ex.C-5 addressed to the United India Insurance Company Limited (the opposite party No. 1) stating the description of the animal in question and also stating that the said animal bearing Token No. 84322 died on 27.2.2015 i.e. within the insurance period and the intimation cum claim form is duly signed by the Nambardar and issued by the Veterinary Officer (the opposite party No. 2) bearing dated 27.2.2015. Ex.C-6 is the copy of postmortem report of the cow in question bearing the signature of Veterinary Officer. Ex.C-10 is the copy of statement of Sh. Paramjit Singh Nambardar, which shows that the cow with Tag No. 84322 died on 27.2.2015. Thus, the perusal of the documents fully proved that the cow in question with Tag No. 84322, which was insured by the insurance company vide insurance policy No. 112100/47/14/01/00000441 died on 27.2.2015 within the insurance period.
10. To face the situation, the Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 contended that as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy the complainant should have intimate the insurance company immediately by giving notice in writing regarding the illness and death of the said cow and the complainant has violated the terms of the policy. Moreover, the complainant never approached the opposite party No. 1 to settle any alleged claim. In support of his contention the Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 1 relied upon the judgment reported as Bawa Singh Vs MD India Health Care Services & others 2015 (2) CLT Page 418.
11. Keeping in view the voluminous, cogent and convincing evidence on record in favour of the complainant, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for opposite party is untenable. In the affidavit filed by the complainant Ex.C-1, he specifically stated that he immediately after the death of cow informed the opposite party No. 1 and upon this the opposite party No. 1 alongwith Surveyor visited the spot and took tag of the said cow, photographs and prepared a CD and recorded the statement of Paramjit Singh Nambardar. He further stated in the affidavit that the claim form was prepared by the opposite party No. 2 and all the desired documents were supplied by the complainant to the opposite parties. Even in the affidavit, the complainant has submitted that he approached the opposite parties many times to settle the claim. Apart from his own affidavit the stand of the complainant is supported by the written version of the opposite party No. 2, wherein he specifically stated that the complainant alongwith Baljit Sharma, who is the agent of opposite party No. 1 requested the opposite party No. 2 to conduct the checkup and issue health certificate of the cow in question. The Veterinary Officer further stated that on 27.2.2015 the postmortem of the said cow was conducted and the claim documents pertaining to the said cow and postmortem report was taken by Des Raj surveyor/investigator of Barnala for settling the claim of the complainant.
12. On the other hand, the insurance company has not placed on record any affidavit of Baljit Sharma as well as Des Raj investigator to show that they were not acting on behalf of insurance company. Except the affidavit of Senior Divisional Manager of the opposite party No. 1, which is on the lines of the written version of opposite party No. 1 there is nothing on record to indicate that the stand of the complainant as well as the Veterinary Officer has been rebutted by the opposite party No. 1. No cogent and convincing evidence has been led by the opposite party No. 1 that the complainant failed to intimate the death as well as lodging the claim of the cow in question to the opposite party No. 1. The judgment Bawa Singh Vs MD India Health Care Services & others cited by the Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 1 shall not lend any help to the opposite party, as it is based upon different facts.
13. 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. 40,000/- alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of death of Cow i.e. 27.2.2015. The opposite party No. 1 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:
1st Day of December, 2015.
(S.K. Goel)
President.
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member.
