Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S.Panesar,President.
- Gurpreet Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that complainant being the owner of two cattles got the same insured with opposite party No.1 vide Insurance policy No. 112100/47/14/01/00000329. Before that opposite party No.1 duly got medically examined the said cattles and issued health certificate having Token No. 79243 and 79244 in which complete description of animals were given. Health certificate in this regard was also issued by the Veterinary officer , wherein it was specified that both the cattles are fit for insurance having validity from 13:55 of 30.9.2014 to midnight of 29.9.2015 with sum assured Rs. 50000/- each. However, out of the said cattles, one cattle bearing Token No. 79243 had died on 14.5.2015 i.e. during the validity period of the said insurance. The complainant submitted claim with opposite party No.1 on the same day i.e. 14.5.2015. Thereafter opposite party No.1 sent the said cattle for post mortem and report of said was given by Senior Veterinary Officer of CVH, Baba Bakala Sahib, Amritsar on 14.5.2015. On 1.9.2015 opposite party No.1 vide letter No. 2115 dated 1.9.2015 alleged that the cattle which has been died is some other cattle than that of insured cattle. Whereas perusal of post mortem report conducted by Dr. Joginder Singh, Sr. Veterinary Officer clearly shows that the cattle which has been died is insured covered under Token No. 79243. The operation part of the said report is as under :-
“As per health certificate at the time of insurance tail of died animal is mistakenly written as black but the actual tail is white. It may be covered with dung and soil at the end of the tail which seems as black but actually it was white. The token number of died animal is 79243 at the time of insurance. So please considered the case which is genuine”.
The said report was duly accepted by opposite party No.1 to be genuine and legal. Thereafter complainant time and again approached opposite party No.1 for getting the claim of his cattle . But the opposite party started making excuses that the claim file of the cattle is not traceable so the claim cannot be passed . Even a representation was also got issued to opposite party No.1 but of no avail. The complainant has sought for the following reliefs vide instant complaint:-
- Opposite parties be directed to make payment of the claim to the complainant regarding the insured cattle having Token No. 79243 alongwith interest @ 18% p.a from the date of entitlement till its realization;
- Compensation to the tune of Rs. 30000/- may also be awarded to the complainant
- Opposite parties be also directed to pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 10000/-.
Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties No.1 & 2 appeared and filed separate written statements.
3. Opposite party No.1 in its written statement has taken certain preliminary objections that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands. That the complainant had insured two cattles from opposite party No.1 vide policy No. 112100/47/14/01/00000329 and before that health certificate was issued by Veterinary Officer i.e. opposite party No.2 for identification of cattle in which whole of description of the cows were mentioned. Accordingly, policy was issued with Token No. 79243 and 79244. On 14.5.2015 complainant approached opposite party No.1 and stated that one cattle bearing Token NO. 79243 had died. Accordingly, postmortem of the same was done on 14.5.2015 and thereafter matter was investigated by the surveyor of the company and after investigation the claim of the complainant was rejected on 1.9.2015 by opposite party No.1 with the reasons that insured animal and claimed animal are different as per health certificate issued by opposite party No.2. Thereafter on the request of the complainant detailed reinvestigation option was conducted by opposite party No.1 through Dr. S.C. Aneja, who gave his detailed report that cow covered under the policy had not actually died and claim is not genuine as false claim has been lodged. The cow insured was of pure Holstein Friesian Breed (meaning thereby with black & white spotted colour) whereas the claimed cow is of cross breed Holstein Friesian (with black and brown uniform body with belly and udder white spotted). They further compared the body parts of the dead cow with the health certificate dated 15.9.2014 issued by opposite party No.2 of insured cow and found major differences i.e switch of tail of insured cow was black, whereas the switch of claimed cow is completely white. The postmortem of died cow was done on 14.5.2015 by opposite party No.2 and when the claim of the complainant was rejected on 1.9.2015, the complainant in connivance with opposite party No.2 managed to get a certificate from opposite party No.1 on 14.11.2015 i.e.after the period of approximately 6 months that tail of the died animal is mistakenly black, whereas the claimed cow’s switch of tail reported after post mortem is black but actually it was white. It was mentioned that opposite party No.2 issued the certificate without the direction of any competent authority, so the claim filed by the complainant is totally false as claimed cow is not matching with the insured cow as per health certificate, hence, complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed on this score alone ; that complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing of the present complaint as opposite party No.1 rejected the claim of the complainant on the basis of health certificate issued by opposite party No.2 at the time of insurance and identification of cow and after the death of approximately 6 months the complainant managed to get a certificate from opposite party No.2 with the reporting that tail of the died animal is mistakenly black, whereas the claimed cow’s switch of tail reported after post mortem is black but actually it was white, as such the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed . On merits, facts narrated in the complaint have been specifically denied and a prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.
4. Opposite party No.2 in its written version has submitted that he was posted as Senior Veterinary Officer of Civil Veterinary Hospital, Baba Bakala District Amritsar. That the cattle of Gurpreet Singh son of Balkar Singh R/o VPO Lakhuwal Tehsil Baba Bakala District Amritsar was insured with Tag No. 79243. The health certificate to the cattle with Tag No. 79243 for insurance under Govt.scheme was issued by him on 15.9.2014. The color of tail switch was erroneously written as black at the time of issuing health certificate as the tail was soiled with dung etc. The error was intimated for rectification to United India Insurance Company on 14.11.2015. The death certificate of cattle with Tag No. 79243 was issued by him on 14.5.2015. The color of same tail was written as white in death certificate.
5. In his bid to prove the case Sh. Vishal Khanna,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-11 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
6. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.S.S.Batra,Adv.counsel for the opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Surinder Singh, Sr.Divisional Manager Ex.OP1/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/10 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.1.
7. On the other hand opposite party No.2 tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.OP2/1 and closed his evidence.
8. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file as well as written synopsis of arguments submitted on behalf of complainant as well as opposite party No.1.
9. On the basis of the evidence on record, ld.counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that complainant was owner of two cows and he through opposite party No.2 got medically insured the said cattles from opposite party No.1 vide Insurance policy No. 112100/47/14/01/00000329 and before that opposite party No.1 duly got medically examined the said cattles and issued health certificate having Token No. 79243 and 79244 in which complete description of animals was given and a health certificate was also issued by the Veterinary Officer of opposite party No.1 wherein it was specified that both the said cattles are fit for insurance while insurance was having validity w.e.f 13:55 on 30.9.2014 to midnight of 29.9.2015. copy of health certificate is Ex.C-3. However, out of the said two cattles , one cattle bearing Token No. 79243 died on 24.9.2015 i.e. during the validity period of the insurance cover. Thereafter the complainant submitted claim form with opposite party No.1 on the same day i.e. 14.5.2015 and thereafter opposite party No.1 sent the cattle for post mortem and report of said post mortem was given by Sr. Veterinary Officer of Civil Veterinary Hospital, Baba Bakala on 24.9.2015, copy whereof is Ex.C-5. The said report was duly accepted by opposite party No.1 to be genuine and legal. Copy of the report is Ex.C-6. Thereafter complainant had time and again approached opposite party No.1 for getting the claim of his cattle but the opposite party is putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. Later on the claim was repudiated by the opposite party vide repudiation letter Ex.C-2. Due to the acts and omissions of opposite party, complainant had suffered huge mental tension, agony, harassment & inconvenience at the hands of the opposite party and he had to run from pillar to post but to no avail. As such complainant is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 50000/- besides the insurance claim. There was no legal bar to the claim of the complainant & it is requested that the claim of the complainant may be allowed with cost.
10. But, however, from the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the complainant has not been able to prove his case. No doubt the complainant got two cows insured with opposite party No.1 for a sum of Rs. 50000/- each vider cover note, copy whereof is Ex.C-7. It is the case of the complainant that one of the cattle bearing Tag No. 79243 had died and accordingly postmortem of the same was done on the same day i.e. 14.5.2015. However, matter was investigated by the surveyor of the company and after investigation the claim of the complainant was rejected on 1.9.2015 by opposite party No.1 for the reasons that insured animal and claimed animal were different & the claim was lodged by the complainant by concocting the real facts. Thereafter on the request of the complainant detailed reinvestigation was conducted by opposite party No.1 through Dr.S.C.Aneja, who submitted his report, copy whereof is Ex. OP1/4 stating therein that the cow covered under the policy had not actually died and the claim was not genuine. The cow insured was of pure Holstein Friesian Breed (meaning thereby with black & white spotted color) whereas the claimed cow is of cross breed Holstein Friesian (with black & brown uniform body with belly and udder white spotted). He further compared the body parts of the dead cow with the health certificate dated 15.9.2014 Ex.OP1/2issued by opposite party No.2 of insured cow and found major difference i.e. switch of tail of insured cow was black, whereas the switch of claimed cow is completely white. In order to meet with the objections, the complainant in connivance with opposite party No.2, managed to get a certificate issued from opposite party No.2 on 4.11.2015 after a period of approximately 6 months to the effect that tail of the died animal was mistakenly mentioned as black while actually it was white. It appears that opposite party No.2 issued the certificate without any authority of competent authority. So the alleged certificate dated 4.11.2015 Ex.OP1/2 issued by opposite party No.2 was having no legal force in the eyes of law & the same is liable to be ignored.
11. From the aforesaid discussion, it transpires that the complainant has filed a wrong claim by mis-representing the facts. The insured cow as well as dead cattle were two different entities and the complainant has failed to identify the dead animal with the insured animal. As such repudiation has rightly been made by opposite party No.1. The complainant has got no force and it deserves to be dismissed.
12. Consequently instant complaint fails and the same is ordered to be dismissed accordingly. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated: 1.11.2016.
