Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

1.       The complainant  has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)  on the allegations that the Complainant obtained insurance policy of his four buffalos from Opposite Party  No.1  through Opposite Party  No.2  vide policy No.2012004718P113852949 valid for the period w.e.f. 17.02.2019 to 16.02.2020 and at the time of issuance of policy, the Opposite Parties  mentioned the description of the animals insured with specific tag numbers after taking the premium to the tune of Rs.13,216/-. The Complainant further alleges that on 14.10.2019 during the policy period, at about 4 PM one buffalo out of four insured buffalos having age 6½ years female colour black having tag No.900108001417838 died and the Complainant immediately informed the Opposite Parties and they appointed surveyor and after visiting, the surveyor took the photographs of the body of the dead buffalo and also completed all the formalities and took the signatures of the Complainant on blank papers as well as on blank printed papers for processing the insurance claim. The postmortem of the dead body of buffalo was conducted by Dr.Himanshu Syal, Veterinary Civil Hospital, Dharamkot. Thereafter, on 04.12.2019 the Complainant received a letter dated 29.11.2019 vide which the claim of the Complainant has been repudiated on the ground that as per the surveyor report insured buffalo was not tagged thus not insured and is not on the risk of company, which is totally a false ground to repudiate the genuine and legal claim, whereas the said dead buffalo was fully insured and tagged with a specific tag No. 900108001417838 which is already  mentioned in the policy as well as in the post mortem report submitted by the concerned doctor of Veterinary Civil Hospital Dharamkot while conducting the postmortem of the dead buffalo from where it is clear that said buffalo was tagged at the time of death. Thereafter, the Complainant made so many visits to the office of Opposite Parties, but they did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the Complainant. In this way, said conduct of the Opposite Parties clearly amounts to deficiency in service and as such, the Complainant is left with no other alternative but to file the present complaint.  Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Parties may be directed to pay the insured amount of Rs.70,000/- of dead buffalo breed Murrah having Identification/ Ear Tag No.900108001417838 alongwith interest @ 12% per annum and Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, physical harassment besides Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses .

2.       Opposite Parties  appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing  the written version  on the ground inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and that the complaint is absolutely false and frivolous. The true facts are that the Complainant got insured his 4 buffalos from the Opposite Parties vide policy No.2012004718P113852949 valid for the period w.e.f. 17.02.2019 to 16.02.2020 and the Complainant intimated regarding the death of one buffalo to the Opposite Parties on 14.10.2019 and the Opposite Parties immediately appointed K.S.Bawa & Co. Surveyors & Loss Assessors to investigate/ inspect the death of buffalo alleged to have been died on 14.10.2019 and the said surveyor after investigation opined that subject dead buffalo belongs to the Complainant was not  tagged, thus not insured and is not on the risk of the company. The post mortem report  of the alleged dead buffalo dos not tally with the particulars of the insured animals as per the insurance policy. The Opposite Parties  after thoroughly considering the surveyors report dated 16.11.2019 repudiated the claim of the Complainant vide letter dated 29.11.2019 on the ground that the subject dead buffalo was not tagged and thus not insured and is not on the risk of the company. On merits, the Opposite Parties took up almost the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

3.       In order to  prove  his  case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1  alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9 and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand,  to rebut the evidence of the complainant,  Opposite Parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.R.N.Bansal, senior Divisional Manager Ex.Ops1 and copies of documents Ex.Ops2 to Ex.Ops5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties, perused the written submissions filed by the Opposite Parties and  gone through the documents placed  on record.

6.       During the course of arguments, ld.counsel for the Complainant has  mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and  contended that  the written version  filed on behalf of Opposite Party  has not been filed by an authorized person. Therefore, the written version so filed is not maintainable. Opposite Party  is limited Company and written version has been filed on the basis of special power of attorney given  to ld.counsel for the Opposite Party.  Further contended that the Complainant obtained insurance policy of his four buffalos from Opposite Party  No.1  through Opposite Party  No.2  vide policy No.2012004718P113852949 valid for the period w.e.f. 17.02.2019 to 16.02.2020 and at the time of issuance of policy, the Opposite Parties  mentioned the description of the animals insured with specific tag numbers after taking the premium to the tune of Rs.13,216/-. The Complainant further alleges that on 14.10.2019 during the policy period, at about 4 PM one buffalo out of four insured buffalos having age 6½ years female colour black having tag No.900108001417838 died and the Complainant immediately informed the Opposite Parties and they appointed surveyor and after visiting, the surveyor took the photographs of the body of the dead buffalo and also completed all the formalities and took the signatures of the Complainant on blank papers as well as on blank printed papers for processing the insurance claim. The postmortem of the dead body of buffalo was conducted by Dr.Himanshu Syal, Veterinary Civil Hospital, Dharamkot. Thereafter, on 04.12.2019 the Complainant received a letter dated 29.11.2019 vide which the claim of the Complainant has been repudiated on the ground that as per the surveyor report insured buffalo was not tagged thus not insured and is not on the risk of company, which is totally a false ground to repudiate the genuine and legal claim, whereas the said dead buffalo was fully insured and tagged with a specific tag No. 900108001417838 which is already  mentioned in the policy as well as in the post mortem report submitted by the concerned doctor of Veterinary Civil Hospital Dharamkot while conducting the postmortem of the dead buffalo from where it is clear that said buffalo was tagged at the time of death. Thereafter, the Complainant made so many visits to the office of Opposite Parties, but they did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the Complainant. In this way, said conduct of the Opposite Parties clearly amounts to deficiency in service.

7.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties  has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant  on the ground that  the Complainant got insured his 4 buffalos from the Opposite Parties vide policy No.2012004718P113852949 valid for the period w.e.f. 17.02.2019 to 16.02.2020 and the Complainant intimated regarding the death of one buffalo to the Opposite Parties on 14.10.2019 and the Opposite Parties immediately appointed K.S.Bawa & Co. Surveyors & Loss Assessors to investigate/ inspect the death of buffalo alleged to have been died on 14.10.2019 and the said surveyor after investigation opined that subject dead buffalo belongs to the Complainant was not  tagged, thus not insured and is not on the risk of the company. The post mortem report  of the alleged dead buffalo dos not tally with the particulars of the insured animals as per the insurance policy. The Opposite Parties  after thoroughly considering the surveyors report dated 16.11.2019 repudiated the claim of the Complainant vide letter dated 29.11.2019 on the ground that the subject dead buffalo was not tagged and thus not insured and is not on the risk of the company.

8.       Perusal of the contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant   shows  that  the written version  filed on behalf of Opposite Party has not been filed by an authorized person. Therefore, the written version so filed is not maintainable. The Opposite Party  is limited Company and written version has been filed on the basis of special power of attorney given  to ld.counsel for the Opposite Party. In this regard,  Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a judgment (2011)II Supreme Court Cases 524 titled as “State Bank of Travancore Vs. Kingston Computers India Pvt. Ltd.” and in para no.11 of the judgment,  has held that

“the plaint was not instituted by an authorized person. On the plea that one authority letter dated 02.01.2003 was issued by Sh. R.K.Shukla in favour of Sh. A.K.Shukla. Further plaint failed to place on record its memorandum/articles to show that Sh. R.k.Shukla has been vested with the powers or had been given a general power of attorney on behalf of the Company to sign, verify and institute the suit on behalf of the Company.”

Similar proposition came before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in “Nibro Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.”, 2 (2005) 5SCC 30 that the

“bear authority is not recognized under law and ultimately, it was held that the plaint was not instituted by an authorized person. Here also appellant has not placed on record any resolution passed by any Board of Director in favour of Mr. Soonwon Kwon and that he was further authorised to delegate his power in favour of any other person. Further there is no memorandum/articles of the Company to show that Mr. Soonwon Kwon is one of the Director of the Company. In the absence of that evidence on record we cannot say that the special power of attorney given by Director Soonwon Kwon is a competent power of attorney issued in favour of Sh. Bhupinder Singh. In the absence of any resolution of the Company or any memorandum/articles of the Company to show that Sh. Soonwon Kwon is Director and that he was further authorised to issue power of attorney in favour of Sh. Bhupinder Singh.”

Recently our own Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab Chandigarh in FAO No.1235 of 2015 decided on 25.01.2017 in case titled as L.G.Electronics India Private Limited Vs. Sita Ram Chaudhary also held that the plaint instituted by  an unauthorized person has no legal effect.

9.       For the sake of arguments, for the time being, if the written reply filed by Opposite Party is presumed to be correct, the next  plea  raised by Opposite Party  is that  in fact, the dead buffalo was not insured and due to this reason, the surveyor appointed by the Opposite Parties opined vide his report that  subject dead buffalo belongs to the Complainant was not  tagged, thus not insured and is not on the risk of the company. The post mortem report  of the alleged dead buffalo dos not tally with the particulars of the insured animals as per the insurance policy. The Opposite Parties  after thoroughly considering the surveyors report dated 16.11.2019 repudiated the claim of the Complainant vide letter dated 29.11.2019 on the ground that the subject dead buffalo was not tagged. But we do not agree with the aforesaid opinion of the surveyor of the Opposite Parties. Perusal of the policy document Micro Insurance Product-Cattle Insurance Policy produced by the Opposite Parties itself Ex.Ops2 shows that in the column of Description of Animals Insured, in Serial No.2, the identification Animal's number ( Ear Tag/ marks) is written as 900108001417838 Buffalo/ Murrah/Indigenous, Female Black amounting to Rs/.70,000/-  and on the other hand, on the Post Mortem report Ex.C6, same tag No. 900108001417838 has been mentioned by Dr.Himanshu Syal, Veterinary Officer, Civil  Hospital, Dharamkot (Moga), but we fail to understand on which ground and as to why, the Opposite Parties have repudiated the genuine claim of the Complainant because on the policy Ex.Ops2 as well as on post mortem report Ex.C6, the tag number of dead buffalo clearly tally which is the same number and animal which was insured by the Complainant with the Opposite Parties.  In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that Opposite Parties were not justified in closing the case of the complainant  without any reason.

10.     In such a situation the repudiation made by the Opposite Party-Insurance Company regarding genuine claim of the complainant have been made without application of mind. It is usual with the insurance company to show all types of green pasters to the customer at the time of selling insurance policies, and when it comes to payment of the insurance claim, they invent all sort of excuses to deny the claim. In the facts of this case, ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., III (2008) CPJ 63 (SC) is fully attracted, wherein it was held that, Insurance Company being in a dominant position, often acts in an unreasonable manner and after having accepted the value of a particular insured goods, disowns that very figure on one pretext or the other, when they are called upon to pay compensation.  This ‘take it or leave it’, attitude is clearly unwarranted not only as being bad in law, but ethically indefensible.  It is generally seen that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. In similar set of facts the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt.Usha Yadav & Others 2008(3) RCR (Civil) Page 111 went on to hold as under:-

“It seams that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. All conditions which generally are hidden, need to be simplified so that these are easily understood by a person at the time of buying any policy.  The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreement, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy. Insurance Company also directed to pay costs of Rs.5000/- for luxury litigation, being rich.

11.     In view of the above discussion, we hold that the Opposite Party-Insurance Company have wrongly and illegally rejected the claim of the complainant. Resultantly, the instant complaint is allowed and the Opposite Parties are directed to pay the insured amount of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousands only) of dead buffalo breed Murrah having Identification/ Ear Tag No.900108001417838, to the complainant  alongwith interest @8 % per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 14.01.2020 till its actual realization. Opposite Parties are also directed to pay the lump sum compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousands only) on account of harassment, mental tension  and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after compliance.

12.     Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.

          This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the State Government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:08.02.2022.