District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tarn Taran.

C.C. No. No                   : 79 of 2014

Date of Institution  : 2.12-2014

Date of Decision    : 20.5.2015

Gajjan Singh son of Dalip Singh, resident of village Channa Bhagwalia Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran.

                                                                   …Complainant

Versus

1. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Having its Divisional Office at SCO-72, Phase 9, SAS Nagar Mohali 160062 through its Divisional Manager.
2.  Dr. Gurdeep Singh, Veterinary Doctor, CVH Varnala Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran.

…Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12  & 13 Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

For the Complainant                          : Sh.H.S.Sandhu, Advocate

For Opposite Parties No.1               : Sh. Rakesh Raman Arora, Advocate

For Opposite Party No.2           : Exparte

Quorum:               Sh. S.K. Goel, President.

Sh. R.D. Sharma, Member.

Smt.Jaswinder Kaur, Member

Order dictated by Sh. S.K.Goel, President

1. Sh. Gajjan Singh son of Sh. Dalip Singh, complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short ‘the Act’) against United India Insurance Company Ltd. Having its Divisional Office at SCO-72, Phase 9, SAS Nagar Mohali 160062 through its Divisional Manager (for short ‘the opposite party No. 1’) and Dr. Gurdeep Singh, Veterinary Doctor, CVH Varnala Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran (for short ‘the opposite party No. 2’)
2. The facts emerging from the present complaint are that the complainant is a farmer and has purchased two cows for personal dairy and got insured his two cows with opposite party No. 1 by paying a premium of Rs. 1,092/-  for insurance cover of Rs. 50,000/- of each cow in cash to the agent of the opposite party No. 1 who visited the house of the complainant on 28.4.2014 and received the premium for both cows and issued insurance cover note on the same day. It is further averred that at the time of insurance of the cows the opposite party NO. 2 was also present on the spot who issued a health certificate dated 28.4.2014 to the complainant. The proforma of which was supplied by the agent of the opposite party No. 1. On that proforma the tag Number for each cow was given for the purpose of distinction between two cows and for identification. It was alleged that on 22.5.2014 one of the cow having tag Number 77522 died and the complainant immediately reported its death to the opposite parties. The opposite party No. 1 sent its surveyor on the same day and he was accompanied by the opposite party No. 2 who conducted the postmortem of the dead cow. The surveyor of the opposite party No. 1 prepared veterinary certificate, detached the tag affixed on the dead cow after the opposite party No. 2 conducted postmortem of the dead body of the cow. Photographs of the dead cow were also taken by the surveyor and also obtained the Photostat copy of the postmortem  and it shows the complainant that he will provide the required documents i.e. photographs, postmortem report, tag and veterinary certificate to the insurance company and they would release the claim of the dead cow which is the market value of Rs. 50,000/-. It is further alleged that opposite party No. 2 also forwarded the photographs of the dead cow alongwith Postmortem report, tag and claim form to the opposite party No. 1 within few days of the death of cow alongwith intimation cum claim form.  However the opposite party No. 1 did not release the claim despite approaching the complainant. But it was astonished when the complainant received letter dated 13.10.2014 from the opposite party No. 1 indicating closing the case as the cow died within 15 days of the insurance. Hence the opposite party No. 1 is guilty of deficiency in service and therefore the present complaint is filed seeking the relief of Rs. 50,000/- and for payment of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for harassment and another Rs. 10,000/- for litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice of the complaint, insurance company opposite party No. 1 appeared and filed written version taking preliminary objections on the ground of maintainability, suppressing the material facts, locus standi, jurisdiction and non joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it is pleaded that alleged cow since has died within 15 days from the issuance of policy and this fact ousted the liability of the answering opposite party and the answering opposite party has rightly sent letter of closing the case. They have denied the other pleas of the complainant and finally prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Notice issued to the opposite party No. 2. But the opposite party No. 2 did not appear. Consequently the opposite party No. 2 proceeded Exparte.       
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered in to evidence affidavit of complainant Ex. C.1, affidavit of Dr. Gurdeep Singh Veterinary Officer Ex. C.2 alongwith documents i.e. policy cover note Ex. C.3, Letter dated 13.10.2014 Ex. C.4, photograph Ex. C.5, Copy of post mortem report Ex. C.6 and closed the evidence.
6. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party No. 1 tendered in to evidence affidavit of Ashok Kumar Assistant Manager Ex. OP-1/1 alongwith documents i.e. letter dated 13.10.2014 Ex. OP-1/2,  copy of office claim note Ex. OP-1/3, copy of Policy Ex. OP-1/4, Copy of certificate Ex. OP-1/5, agreement mark A and closed the evidence of opposite party No. 1.
7. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and opposite party No. 1 and have gone through the record.
8. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant has contended that the cow in question died and it was insured vide insurance cover note Ex. C-3 for Rs. 1,092/- for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. He further contended that the Veterinary Doctor conducted the post mortem Ex. C-6 of the dead cow and photographs of the dead cow were also taken by the surveyor and all the documents were submitted to the opposite party/ insurance company. But the opposite party No. 1 refused to pay the insurance amount despite visiting many times by the complainant. On the other hand, counsel for opposite party No. 1 contended that no policy was issued on 28.4.2014. Infact the policy Ex. OP1/3 was covered the period of insurance from 25.5.2014 to 24.5.2015. Since the dead cow was died on 22.5.2014 and therefore, in terms of policy the dead cow was not covered and therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any insurance amount.
9. Now the question arises whether the dead cow was covered in the policy/ cover note on the date of death. The entire emphasis of the complainant is on the document Ex. C.3. Perusal of the same shows that it is a health certificate and signed by Sh. Gurdeep Singh Veterinary Doctor. This health certificate contains the description of animal proposed for the insurance. In the end of this health certificate it is specifically mentioned by the Doctor that:

“This is to certify that above said animals are healthy and free from any injury/ disease and fully fit for insurance at above price.”

Thus bare perusal of the health certificate shows that it is the fitness certificate issued by the Veterinary Doctor containing all the details of animal to be insured. But this health certificate cannot be ranked to the status of insurance cover note. On the other hand, the insurance company has placed on record office claim note Ex. OP1/3, cattle insurance policy schedule Ex. OP1/4 and Insurance certificate Ex. OP1/5. These documents show that the insurance commenced from 25.5.2014 till 24.5.2015. Policy number was 47/14/01/113. Thus the documents placed on record by the insurance company as referred to above cannot be discarded and health certificate C-3 produced by the complainant cannot over weigh the documents placed by the insurance company. This view is supported by the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab Chandigarh in F.A. No. 1455 of 2013 title as United India Insurance Company Ltd. and another Vs Gurdev Singh and another decided on 18.12.2014.

10      As a result of above discussion, there is no merit in the present complaint, therefore the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. However the parties are left to bear their own costs. The copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.                   

                                                                             Sd/-

Announced in open Forum                             (S.K. Goel)             

Dated:20.5.2015                                             President

                                                    Sd/-                            Sd/-       

                                                (R.D. Sharma)       (Jaswindeer Kaur)                                           Member                        Member