Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/72/2014

Shingara Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

united india insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Ts Dhiman

01 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                                 Consumer Complaint No.72 of 2014

                                                                 Date of institution:  27.05.2014                                                                         Date of decision  :  01.04.2015

Shingara Singh s/o Inder Singh resident of # 15 Ward No.7 village Ramgarh Tehsil Amloh ,District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Branch Khanna, Tehsill Khanna, District Ludhiana through its regional Manager/Chairman

2. Canara Bank, Branch Salana, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Manager.

   …..Opposite Parties

   Complaint Under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act

   Quorum

   Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.                                                            Smt. Veena Chahal, Member.

   Present : Sh.Tejinder Singh Dhiman,counsel for the complainant.                               Sh.Amit Gupta, counsel for OP no.1.                                                                              Sh.S.K.Garg, counsel for OP no.2.

    

    

   ORDER

   By Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

                    Complainant Shingara Singh resident of village Ramgarh, Tehsil Amloh District Fatehgarh Sahib has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

   2.             The complainant purchased a cow colour black and white, dehorned of location second horns white B, white legs, for an amount of Rs.50,000/-after taking the loan from Canara Bank i.e. OP no.2. He got insured the cow with OP no.1 i.e. United India Insurance Co. for the period from 6.5.2013 to 5.5.2014 vide policy No.200603/47/13/01/00000008 dated 6.5.2013 in a sum of Rs.50,000/-after paying the premium of Rs.5618/-. The cow of the complainant is falling ill and became totally unfit for reproduction .The complainant is getting the treatment of the cow from veterinary officer, PA.H.S.-1,InchargeCivil Veterinary Hospital, Shamshpur but all in vain. The complainant requested the OPs to release the insured amount of the cow. The Manager Canara Bank had also written a letter to this effect to OP no.1 for the settlement of the claim. The complainant fulfilled the formalities after receiving the LIFESTOCK CLAIM FORM from OP no.1.The complainant also got served a legal notice dated 3.5.2014 upon OP no.1 .The OP instead of settling the claim had sent the reply to the notice and failed to make the payment of the insurance amount. Thus there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint for a direction to the OPs to make the payment of Rs.1,00,000/-with interest @18% per annum (Rs.50,000/- as the insured amount + Rs.50,000/-) as compensation for the harassment and the mental agony suffered by the complainant.

   3.              Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs who appeared and filed the separate written version.

   4.              In the written reply filed by op No.1, it is admitted that the complainant had got one insurance policy No.200603/47/13/01/00000008 dated 6.5.2013 having covered the two cattle with ID Nos.9001800012941 and 9001800012959 in a sum of Rs.50,000/-each subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It is averred that under Condition No.4 of the policy the insured shall give immediate notice in writing to the company of “any illness of lameness or accident or injury to any animal hereby insured”. It is averred that no intimation has ever been received from the complainant regarding the illness of the cow. The Op has never refused to process the claim. Thus there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP. After denouncing the other averments made in the complaint, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

   5.              In the written reply filed by OP no.2 it has taken preliminary objection that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and OP no.2. It is admitted by this OP that the complainant has purchased one cow of black and white colour, dehorned of location second horns white B, white legs, for an amount of Rs.50,000/- after taking the loan from it and got the same insured with OP no.1 for the period from 6.5.2013 to 5.5.2014 vide policy No.200603/47/13/01/0000000/8 dated 6.5.2013 having paid a sum of Rs.5618/-as premium. It is averred that the complainant has never approached OP no.2 for the purpose of any insurance claim. No claim is to be paid by OP no.2. There is no deficiency of service on the part of OP no.2. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

   6.              In order to prove the case, the counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.C1 copy of cattle insurance policy,Ex.C2 copy of terms and conditions of the policy,Ex.C3 copy of treatment chart,Ex.C4 copy of certificate from the veterinary officer,Ex.C5 copy of legal notice,Ex.C6 copy of postal receipt,Ex.C7 copy of reply to the legal notice,Ex.C8copy of letter dated 15.11.2013,Ex.C9 copy of livestock claim form, Ex.C10 affidavit of Shingara Singh and closed the evidence.

   7.              On the other hand, on behalf of OP no.1, its counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OP1/1 affidavit of Harmail Singh, Manager,Ex.OP1/2 copy of cattle insurance policy and closed the evidence.

   8.              Similarly on behalf of OP no.2, its counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OP2/1 affidavit of Satish Kumar Chopra, Branch Manager and closed the evidence.

   9.              The ld. counsel for the complainant pleaded that despite filing the claim the OP no.1 is not settling the same hence it amounts to deficiency of service. The ld. counsel stated that the same was sent through OP no.2 and now the OP no.2 is denying the same, hence requested that the complaint be allowed and complainant be compensated for the same.

   10.            On the other hand the ld. counsel for the OP no.1 denied of receiving any claim form alongwith documents for settlement of claim. The ld. counsel stated that the claim has rightly been rejected in view of the condition no.4 and 8 of the policy thus prayed that the present complaint is not maintainable and deserves dismissal.

   11.            On the other hand the ld. counsel for the OP no.2 denied all the allegations of the complaint and submitted that the OP no.2 had only sanctioned loan for the buffalo of the complainant.

   12.            After going through the pleadings and evidence and submissions of the ld. counsel for the parties, we feel the present complaint cannot be decided in a summary manner as it requires voluminous evidence to decide the same. We feel in the present case there are complicated questions of facts involved which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Form. Accordingly we are unable to decide the case in hand on merits hence; we return the present complaint with the liberty to the complainant to approach the appropriate court of law/Tribunal. The present complaint is disposed of with the aforementioned observation.

   13.            The arguments on the complaint were heard on 31.03.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

    Pronounced

    Dated:01.04.2015

(A.P.S.Rajput)                           President

 

  (Veena Chahal)                            Member