BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
FORUM, MOGA.
Complaint No.07 of 2015
Instituted On: 22.01.2015
Decided On: 05.05.2015
Gurpreet Singh son of S. Kakka Singh resident of Village Kot-Ise-Khan, District Moga.
Complainant
Versus
1. United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional office, SCO 72, Phase 9, SAS Nagar, Mohali-160059.
2. United India Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager, G.T.Road, Moga.
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Coram: Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Smt Vinod Bala, Member
Smt Bhupinder Kaur
Present: Sh Rajiv Kumar Mittal, Advocate counsel for the complainant.
Sh.Jaswinder Singh , Advocate, counsel for OPs
C.C.No. 07 of 2015 //2//
ORDER
(S.S.Panesar, President)
Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) against the United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional office, SCO 72, Phase 9, SAS Nagar, Mohali-160059 & another (herein-after referred to as Insurance Company)-opposite parties directing them to pay the insurance claim amount Rs.50,000/- on account of death of cow, to pay Rs.10,000/-as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment besides Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation and also to grant any other relief to which this Forum may deem proper.
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant got insurance policy for his cow on 14.08.2014 in which sum insured was Rs.50,000/-, which was valid from 14.08.2014 to 13.08.2015. The cow of the complainant died on 08.09.2014. The post mortem of the said cow was got conducted by vetenary doctor, Civil Veterinary Hospital, Dharmkot. As per policy issued by the opposite parties, the complainant was entitled for the claim on account of death of his cow. After completing formalities, the complainant approached opposite parties regarding insurance claim, but opposite parties went on lingering the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant time and again approached the opposite parties regarding the insurance claim, but to no effect. Due to the negligent act of the
C.C.No. 07 of 2015 //3//
opposite parties, the complainant is suffering from mental, physical harassment and economic loss. Hence the present complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. Opposite parties appeared through their counsel Sh.Jaswinider Singh Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up certain preliminary objections therein interalia that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has got no locus standi; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties; that the present complaint is false and frivolous; that a complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint;that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands; that after receipt of intimation of loss on 08.09.2014, the opposite parties deputed investigator for spot investigation who did the spot investigation of the dead animal, therefore, the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 03.03.2015 on the ground that the animal was sick/ill and very weak at the time of issuance of health certificate by Veterinary doctor. As per insurance policy Condition No.2 the animal must be in sound and perfect health condition, so the claim is filed as “No claim.” On merits, it has been pleaded that the insurance policy bearing No.111210/47/14/01/00000197 was issued regarding the Tag No.78759 subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost has been made.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence
C.C.No. 07 of 2015 //4//
his affidavit Ex.C-1 and copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-9 and closed
his evidence.
5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite party Nos.1 & 2 tendered affidavit of Sh.Anoop Kanojia authorized signatory Ex.OP1& 2/1 and copies of documents Ex.OP1& 2/2 to Ex. O.P1 & 2/7 and closed their evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the record.
7. On the basis of evidence on record, learned counsel for complainant has vehemently contended that the complainant got his cow insured with opposite parties for a sum of Rs.50,000/- vide Tag No.78759 bearing policy No.112100/47/14/01/00000197, copy of the insurance policy Ex. OP.1-2/5. The cow died on 08.09.2014. Post mortem examination of the cow was conducted by veterinary doctor, Civil Veterinary Hospital, Dharamkot, copy of post mortem report accounts Ex. C-7. The complainant applied for getting the insurance claim with the opposite parties but however the opposite parties turned down the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 03.03.2015 on the following grounds:
"Animal was sick/ill and very weak at the time of issue of Health Certificate by Veterinary Doctor with malafide attention which is also seen very clear from the photographs taken at that time."
C.C.No. 07 of 2015 //5//
8. It has further been contended by counsel for the complainant that the claim of the complainant has been turned down by the opposite parties without any reasonable ground. The opposite parties had verified the soundness of the animal at the time of entering the insurance agreement from an independent agent i.e. Govt. veterinary. Moreover the opposite parties have not disclosed any disease from which the animal was allegedly suffering nor they have produced record of any previous treatment, which the animal allegedly got prior to getting insured. There was absolutely no reason to repudiate the claim. It is contended that instant complaint may be granted and the complainant may be allowed the insurance amount along with damages to the tune of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) for mental tension, harassment and agony besides Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as costs of the litigation.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has vehemently contended that the animal was unsound at the time of getting the insurance policy issued. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has invited our attention to the photograph of the insured animal Ex. C-8 to bring home the point that the animal was unsound and of weak constitution. The complainant has played a fraud upon opposite parties in getting the animal insured by making misrepresentation and therefore, the claim has rightly been repudiated. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The complaint is false and frivolous. It is, therefore,
C.C.No. 07 of 2015 //6//
contended that the complaint may be dismissed.
10. We have given thoughtful consideration to rival contentions.
11. There is no dispute that the cattle in dispute was insured vide insurance cover, copy whereof is Ex. OP. 1-2/5 for an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 09.08.2014. It is also not disputed that the animal died on 08.09.2014 and his post mortem was carried out at Civil Veterinary Hospital, Dharamkot, copy of post mortem report is Ex. C-7. Opposite parties repudiated the claim of the complainant on the pretext that the animal was unsound at the time of issuance of insurance policy and the complainant has made misrepresentation regarding sound health of the animal and got the insurance cover issued for the animal. As a matter of fact, the animal was suffering from some serious disease. But, however, there is nothing on record to substantiate the said fact. No record of previous ailment/treatment of the animal has been adduced on record. Moreover at the time of issuing the insurance cover, opposite parties were under legal obligation to get the animal medically examined from some veterinary doctor for ascertaining the soundness of the animal. There is evidence on record that a Govt. veterinary did conduct the medical examination of the cow at that time, copy whereof is Ex. C-6 on record. No blame can be passed on to the complainant that he got some unsound animal insured from the opposite parties by making some misrepresentation. A perusal of the photograph referred to by the counsel for opposite parties, would not reveal regarding soundness or otherwise of
C.C.No. 07 of 2015 //7//
the health of the animal. However, it shows that the animal was of weak constitution. The said fact was also visible to the opposite parties at that appropriate time and if they have not taken proper care and caution, they are to curse their own stars. The repudiation made by opposite parties is neither legal nor sustainable at law. The complainant is entitled to insurance claim to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) on account of death of the insured cow bearing Tag No.78759 besides that the complainant is also entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only). Compliance of this order be made within a period of 30 days on receipt of copy of the order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled to receive the awarded amount along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of passing of the order until full and final payment. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost immediately and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
(Bhupinder Kaur) (Vinod Bala) (S.S. Panesar)
Member Member President
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated:05.05.2015.
