DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  87

                                                Instituted on:    06.03.2017                                                       Decided on:       03.07.2017

Pankaj Jindal son of Raj Kumar, resident of Village Jakhepal, Tehsil Sunam, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Near Civil Hospital, Sangrur, Dhuri Road, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

2.     United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office SCO 72, Phase 9, SAS Nagar, Mohali-160062 through its Divisional Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Shri Sandip Goyal, Adv.

For OPs                    :       Shri Ashish Garg, Adv.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Pankaj Jindal, 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 got insured his cow from the OPs for the period from 26.2.2015 to 25.2.2016 for Rs.50,000/- and accordingly the Ops issued tag number 84128 dated 26.2.2015 to the insured cow.  It is further averred that the cow in question was duly medically examined by the OPs from Dr. Vishaldeep and issued a health certificate accordingly.  The case of the complainant is that the cow in question bearing tag number 84128 suddenly died on 24.10.2015 and at that time the cow was quite healthy and five years old. After receipt of the intimation by the Ops about the death of the cow, the OPs appointed Dr. Ram Kumar to examine the cow, who visited and clicked some photographs. Thereafter the post-mortem of the dead cow was conducted and the complainant also submitted the duly signed claim form to the OPs. The grievance of the complainant is that the Ops wrote the tag number 84129 instead of 84128 as the insured cow was bearing tag number 84128. The complainant also filed a complaint before this Forum, which was later on withdrawn with the due permission on 19.9.2016.  It is further averred that the complainant had also got insured another cow bearing tag number 84129 which also died on 27.9.2015.  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 insurance claim amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply of the complaint filed by the Ops, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that there are complicated questions of law and facts involved which cannot be decided in summary proceedings, that the complainant is not a consumer, that the complainant earlier filed a complaint number 98 dated 14.3.2016 regarding death of the cow bearing tag number 84129 which was dismissed vide order dated 19.9.2016 and that the complaint is time barred.  On merits, it is admitted that on the request of M/s. Punjab Live Stock Development Board, the OP number 2 insured a cow bearing tag number 84128 for Rs.50,000/- for the period from 27.2.2015 to 26.2.2016. It is further denied that the cow bearing tag number 84128 died on 24.10.2015. It is further stated that on the other hand, the said cow died on 27.9.2015 and the psot mortem was also conducted on the same day i.e. 27.9.2015. It has been denied that Dr. Ram Kumar was appointed for spot verification, whereas Dr. Dina Nath was appointed for spot verification. It has been denied that in the post-mortem report tag number has been wrongly mentioned as 84129 instead of 84128. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-17 copies of documents and photographs and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP-26 copies of documents and affidavits and closed evidence.

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

5.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant got insured one cow vide tag number 84128 dated 26.2.2015 for Rs.50,000/-, as is evident from the copy of insurance policy on record Ex.C-2.  The grievance of the complainant is that though he submitted the claim with the Ops, but the Ops did not pay the claim on the ground that the documents have been submitted against the death of the cow bearing tag number 84129, whereas the complainant has sought relief on account of death of the cow bearing tag number 84128.    On the other hand, the stand of the OPs is that the cow bearing tag number 84128 never died on 24.10.2015 as the complainant has not submitted any supporting evidence to show that the cow bearing tag number 84128 died on 24.10.2015.  We have perused the copy of intimation cum claim form, wherein the complainant has submitted that the animal having tag number 84129 died on 24.10.2015 and the death certificate is also in respect of the animal having tag number 84129.  Similarly, the copy of post-mortem certificate Ex.C-5 also shows that the dead cow was bearing tag number 84129 and not 84128.  Ex.C-7 is the copy of letter dated 13.1.2016, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the claim cannot be settled on account of different tag number.  Further the Ops have also produced on record the copy of intimation cum claim form showing that the cow bearing tag number 84129 has already been died on 27.9.2015.  There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that how an animal can die twice. Under the circumstances of the case, we are unable to go with the contention of the complainant that in actual the complainant is entitled to get any claim on account of death of cow bearing tag number 84128, whereas he has miserably failed to produce any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record to corroborate his contention that the cow in question bearing tag number 84128 died on 24.10.2015.

6.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, 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.

                July 3, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

                                                              (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member