DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 05/2015
Date of Institution : 02.01.2015
Date of Decision : 06.07.2015
Roop Singh aged about 34 years son of Shri Bhajan Singh son of Bhag Singh resident of near Bye Pass Bus Stand, Tajo Ke Road, Tehsil Tapa, District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
United India Insurance Company Limited, SCO No. 72, 2nd floor, Phase-IX, Sector 63, Mohali through its Senior Branch Manager.
Punjab Live Stock Development Board 17, Boys Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh-160017.
Punjab Live Stock Development Board, Village Tapa, Tehsil Tapa, District Barnala.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. Gagandeep Garg Advocate counsel for complainant.
Sh. A.K. Jindal Advocate counsel for opposite party No.1
The opposite party No. 2 exparte.
The opposite party No. 3 deleted.
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 Roop Singh has filed the 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 purchased three cows through Punjab Live Stock Development Board, Sector 17, Chandigarh, the opposite party No. 2, which is having its Branch Office at Tapa District Barnala, the opposite party No. 3. It is alleged that all these three cows were insured by the opposite party No. 1 and at the time of insurance of these cows Tag Nos. 78163, 78164 and 78165 were inserted in the ears of the cows respectively at Tapa and a health certificate was also issued by the Veterinary Doctor, Civil Veterinary Hospital, Tapa. It is alleged that the opposite party No. 1 issued cattle insurance policy vide policy No. 112100/47/14/01/00000162 and the cows were insured from 28.7.2014 to 27.7.2015.
2. It is further alleged that out of these three cows one cow bearing Tag No. 78164 was suddenly died on 13.9.2014. The postmortem of the died cow was conducted by the doctor of Veterinary Hospital, Tapa. It is alleged that the claim regarding the died cow was declined by the opposite party No. 1 vide letter dated 22.10.2014. The opposite party No. 1 failed to provide services as agreed by them at the time of issuance of insurance policy regarding the cow bearing Tag No. 78164 and the opposite party No. 1 also failed to pay the claim amount of the said cow, which clearly shows the deficiency in service on their part and caused a great mental tension, agony and harassment to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.
To pay the claim amount of the complainant to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum.
To pay Rs. 30,000/- as compensation.
To pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite parties No. 1 to 3. However, on 2.3.2015 the Ld. Proxy Counsel for the complainant made a statement that the complainant does not want to proceed against the opposite party No. 3 and his name be deleted from the array of opposite parties and the opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 6.4.2015.
4. The opposite party No. 1 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 party No. 1 is admitted to the extent that the complainant purchased three cows and the same were insured by the opposite party No. 1 bearing Tag Nos. 78163, 78164 and 78165. It is further admitted that the cows were insured from 28.7.2014 to 27.7.2015. It is averred that the complainant in connivance with the Veterinary Doctor, provided wrong Health Certificate of Cow bearing Tag No. 78164, therefore the opposite party No. 1 issued the insurance cover note of the cow bearing Tag No. 78164 alongwith other two cows bearing Tag Nos. 78163 and 78165. Whereas, at the time of insurance, the health of the cow was not sound and perfect. 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”.
5. It is further submitted that the opposite party No. 1 appointed a competent investigator Dr. S.C. Aneja, who examined the cows before disbursement of the claim by the opposite party No. 1 and submitted his detailed investigation report. As per the report of Investigator, the cow bearing Tag No. 78164 was not sound and not healthy. It is further submitted that the claim of the complainant regarding cow bearing Tag No. 78164 is rightly repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that the cattle was not healthy at the time of insurance. They have also denied any deficiency in service on their part and finally 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 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 letter dated 23.12.2014 Ex.C-7, affidavit of Dr. Nirmal Singh, Veterinary Officer Ex.C-8 and closed his evidence.
7. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite party No. 1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Balwinder Singh Senior Divisional Manager Ex.O.P1/1, copy of cattle insurance policy Ex.O.P1/2, copy of premium receipt Ex.O.P1/3, copy of terms and conditions of policy Ex.O.P1/4, photocopies of photographs Ex.O.P1/5 and Ex.O.P1/6, copy of reinvestigation opinion Ex.O.P1/7, photocopies of photographs Ex.O.P1/8 to Ex.O.P1/10, copy of claim note Ex.O.P1/11, copy of repudiation letter dated 23.12.2014 Ex.O.P1/12 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, wherein he reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint. Further, the complainant has placed on record the insurance policy Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3. The perusal of the same shows that this policy was valid from 28.7.2014 to 27.7.2015 and the cattle in question bearing Token No. 78164 was insured for Rs. 40,000/-. Ex.C-4 is the postmortem report issued by the Veterinary Officer, which shows that the Cow in question died on 13.9.2014. Ex.C-5 is the intimation cum claim form addressed to the opposite party, which shows that the animal in question died on 13.9.2014 and it was insured for Rs. 40,000/-. Ex.C-8 is the affidavit of Dr. Nirmal Singh, Veterinary Officer, Civil Veterinary Hospital Tapa, Barnala, wherein he stated that on 25.7.2014 he medically checked the cow bearing Tag No. 78164 owned by Roop Singh complainant and found the cow physically healthy, therefore he issued a Health Certificate to this effect. He further stated that on 13.9.2014 he conducted the postmortem of the above said cow of Roop Singh complainant.
10. 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. 112100/47/14/01/00000162. He further argued that as the Dr. Nirmal Singh Veterinary Officer, Civil Veterinary Hospital Tapa, Barnala, has stated in his affidavit Ex.C-8 that on 25.7.2014 he medically checked the cow bearing Tag No. 78164 and found the same physically healthy and issued a Health Certificate to this effect, therefore the complainant is entitled to the insurance amount of Rs. 40,000/- alongwith interest.
11. On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 argued 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 opposite party No. 1 has placed on record copy of reinvestigation opinion of Dr. S.C. Aneja Ex.O.P1/7, wherein, it is mentioned that he has gone through the files and after thorough technical reinvestigation he is of the opinion that the above said cow of Roop Singh complainant insured vide policy/cover note No. 112100/47/14/01/00000162 for the period from 28.7.2014 to 27.7.2015 with Tag No. 78164 had actually died and the claim is genuine and may kindly be paid.
12. We have minutely gone through the evidence tendered by both the parties and are of the view that the opposite party No. 1 has failed to rebut the case of the complainant that the cow in question bearing Tag No. 78164 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 party No. 1. Accordingly, the complainant is entitled to the insurance amount of Rs. 40,000/- alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of death of his Cow i.e. 13.9.2014. He is further entitled to Rs. 5,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and Rs. 2,100/- on account of litigation expenses from the opposite party No. 1. This order of ours 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:
6th Day of July, 2015.
(S.K. Goel)
President.
(Karnail Singh)
Member.
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member.
