DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.    219

                                                Instituted on:      19.05.2017

                                                Decided on:       21.08.2017

Jaswinder Kaur wife of Gurdhian Singh, resident of Village Moranwali, PO Sunam, Tehsil Sunam, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office: SCO 72, Phase-9, SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Divisional Manager.

2.             Dr. Vishal Deep Singh, Veterinary Officer, Government Veterinary Hospital, Sunam, Tehsil Sunam, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

For the complainant    :       Shri Kulvir Sunam, Adv.

For OP No.1              :       Shri S.P.Sharma, Adv.

For OP No.2              :       Shri G.P.Sharma, Adv.

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Smt. Jaswinder Kaur, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OP number 1 by getting insured his two cows under tag number 71738 and 71739 against health certificate dated 20.3.2014 for the period from 21.3.2014 to 20.3.2015.  The grievance of the complainant is that one cow bearing tag number 71739 died on 19.2.2015 and the complainant gave intimation to the OP number 2 and as per the instructions of OP number 2 the complainant got conducted the post-mortem of the dead cow from Veterinary Hospital Sunam and thereafter submitted all the documents to the OP number 2.  The complainant though approached Op number 2 a number of times to get the claim, but all in vain.  The complainant got served a legal notice dated 5.12.2016 upon the OP number 1 to release the claim amount of Rs.20,000/- but nothing happened. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.20,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply of the complaint filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is frivolous and vexatious in nature, that the complainant is not a consumer, that the complaint is baseless and flagrant abuse of process of law and that the complaint is premature as the complainant never intimated to the OP for any claim.  On merits, it is intimated that the complainant got insured his two cows as stated above for Rs.20,000/- each.  The complainant never intimated OP number 1 about the death of the cow rather the complainant intimated OP number 2.  It is stated further that neither the complainant nor OP number 2 intimated to the OP number 1 regarding the death of cow bearing tag number 71739 allegdly died on 19.2.2015 nor the OP number 1 has received any intimation about the death of the cow in question.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied and any deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 1 has been denied in toto.

3.             In reply filed by Op number 2, it is stated that the OP number 2 conducted the post-mortem of the dead cow of the complainant and further submitted all the documents to the OP number 1 for further process. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 copies of the documents and affidavits and closed evidence.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/5 copies of documents and affidavits and closed evidence.  The leaned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/3 affidavit, health certificate and post-mortem report and closed evidence

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured two animals under the policy in question for Rs.20,000/- each and the OP number 1 provided token bearing number 71738 and 71739 after getting issued the health certificate dated 20.3.2014. It is further admitted fact of the complainant that during the subsistence of the insurance policy the cow bearing tag number 71739 died on 19.2.2015.  Now, the grievance of the complainant is that though she lodged the claim with the Op number 2, but the claim was not paid despite submission of all the documents to OP number 2.  On the other hand, the stand of the OP number 1 is that the complainant never lodged any claim with the OP number 1 nor submitted any documents for settlement of the claim.  It is worth mentioning here that it is the case of the complainant herself that she submitted all the documents to the OP number 2 and also intimated about the death of the cow in question.  But, we failed to understand why the complainant lodged the claim with the OP number 2 and in what capacity the claim was lodged with the OP number 2. Since the complainant was duty bound to lodge the claim with the Op umber 1 i.e insurance company and not with the OP number 2, but she did not do so.  The complainant has not produced even a single document on record to show that she ever lodged any claim with the OP number 1 or even intimated about the death of the cow in question to the OP number 1.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 1.  In the circumstances, we feel that ends of justice would be met if the complainant is directed to provide/submit the documents in her possession for settlement of the claim by the OP number 1.

7.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the complainant to provide the documents whichever are in her possession to OP number 1 within a period of 15 days under proper receipt and thereafter the OP number 1 shall decide the claim within thirty days of the same and intimate their decision to the complainant under registered letter.  It is made clear that it will be open for the complainant to approach this forum again, if she remains unsatisfied from the decision of the OPs.  Under the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        August 21, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member