Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/95/2016

Jagroop Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others - Opp.Party(s)

G.S. Tiwana

21 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No. 95 of 2016

                                                                      Date of institution : 07/10/2016                          

                                                                      Date of decision    : 21.04.2017

Jagroop Singh aged about 45 years son  of Sh. Gurdeep Singh R/o Village Sidhwan, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. United India Insurance Company, Registered & Head Office: 24 Whites Road, Chennai-600014 through its Managing Director.
2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Patiala Road Rajpura, Near Railway Over Bridge through its Branch Manager.
3. Malwa Gramin Bank, Branch Bhamarsi Buland, District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Branch Manager.

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.                                              

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President               

Sh. Inder Jit, Member

 

Present :  Sh. C.S.Tiwana, Adv. counsel for the complainant.    

                Sh.D.P.S.Anand, Adv.Cl. for OPs No.1 & 2.

               Opposite Party No.3 exparte

 

 

 ORDER

 

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                      Complainant, Jagroop Singh aged about 45 years son  of Sh. Gurdeep Singh R/o Village Sidhwan, Tehsil and 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 Six Cows by arranging credit facility from OP No.3 and got insured the same from OPs No.1 & 2 - Insurance Company, vide insurance cover note No.928693 dated 10.07.2012, for the period from 11.07.2012 to 10.07.2015. Separate Chips were embedded with the said cows and the cows were valued at Rs.50,000/- each. Two cows bearing micro chip No.900108000007144 and another micro chip No.900108000007146 had died during the period of insurance coverage. The complainant had applied for getting insurance claim to the concerned branch of OPs i.e. OP No.2. But OP No.2 paid  claim in respect of only one cow bearing chip No.900108000007144. The OPs did not pay the insurance amount regarding the second cow notwithstanding the submission of claim form by the complainant to the concerned OP in time and also notwithstanding the submission of the documents regarding the death of two cows including the postmortem reports of the same. The complainant also got served legal notice dated 05.08.2016 on the OPs but in vain. The complainant also so many times visited the office of the OPs No. 2 & 3 seeking his claim but they did not bother the genuine requests of the complainant. The OPs committed deficiency in service by not providing insured amount of Rs.50,000/- for the aforesaid cow to the complainant.  Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- as insured amount of the said cow and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for un-necessary harassment and mental pain suffered by the complainant and also Rs.10,000/- as litigation charges.

3.                   Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs but OP No.3 chose not to appear to contest this complaint. Hence, OP No.3 was proceeded against exparte.

4.                   The complaint is contested by OPs No. 1& 2, who filed joint written reply. In reply to the complaint, OPs No.1 & 2 raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the present complaint is not maintainable; the present complaint does not qualify the ingredients of a valid complaint as envisaged in Section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act and a complicated question of law and facts are involved and only the Civil Court is competent to try the present complaint. As regards the facts of the complaint, OPs No.1 & 2 stated that OP No.1 had issued Dairy Insurance Package policy for the period 11.07.2012 to 10.07.2015 in favour of Malwa Gramin Bank, Bhamarsi, Buland A/C Sh. Jagrup Singh for five cows for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-  and each cow insured for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. They further stated that no intimation of death of cow bearing Micro Chip No.900108000007146 had ever been given, lodged and intimated by the complainant. The complainant intimated the death of one cow only having Micro Chip No.900108000007144 on 26.05.2013 and immediately, on its receipt the OPs deputed Sh. Ashok Kumar approved Investigator to investigate and verify the death of the insured cow, who submitted his report dated 08.06.2013 and the claim of the dead cow was paid to the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, they prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

5.                   In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW1/A, copy of cover note Ex. C-1, copy of legal notice Ex. C-2, original postal receipts Ex. C-3 & C-4, copy of claim form Ex. C-5, copy of veterinary certificate Ex. C-6, copy of valuation certificate Ex. C-7, copy of certificate by Sarpanch Ex. C-8,  copy of postmortem report Ex. C-9, copy of veterinary health certificate Ex. C-10 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OPs No. 1 & 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. D.P. Garg, Branch Manager, Ex. OP-1, affidavit of Ashok Kumar Ex. OP-2, true copies of documents i.e. voucher Ex. OP-3, insurance policy Ex. OP-4, investigation report Ex. OP-5, claim form Ex.OP-6, stock claim Ex.OP-7, valuation certificate Ex. OP-8, certificate by Sarpanch Ex. OP-9, postmortem report Ex. OP-10, statement of complainant Ex. OP-11, statement of Sh. Kulwant Singh Ex. OP-12, statement of Parvinder Singh Ex. OP-13, statement of Sudagar Singh Ex. OP-14, chip certificate Ex. OP-15, cover note Ex. OP-16, health certificate Ex. OP-17, Adhar Card Ex. OP-18, customer card Ex. OP-19, intimation Ex. OP-20 and closed the evidence.

6.                   Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the main controversy in the present case is that two cows of the complainant died and claim was filed by the complainant but the OPs only settled the claim of  one cow bearing micro chip No.900108000007144 and ignored the claim of cow bearing micro chip No. 900108000007146. He pleaded that it is established from documents placed on record with regard to cow bearing micro chip No. 900108000007146 that the OPs committed deficiency in service by not settling the claim. Learned counsel argued that complainant deserves to be compensated for the negligent act and conduct of the OPs.

7.                   On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs stated that the claim of the cow bearing micro chip No. 900108000007146 was never received by the OPs, hence the OPs could not decide the same. He pleaded that the OPs cannot be held liable as intimation of death of cow bearing micro chip No. 900108000007146 was never given, lodged and intimated by the complainant, which amounts to violation of terms and conditions of the policy. Learned counsel argued that no material evidence has been placed on record to prove the allegations against the OPs and submitted that the present complaint be dismissed with costs.

8.                   After hearing Learned Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties and the oral arguments and written submissions, we find force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the complainant. It is evident from the  claim form Ex. C-5, veterinary certificate Ex. C-6,valuation certificate Ex.   C-7, certificate by Sarpanch Ex.C-8, postmortem report Ex.                C-9, veterinary health certificate Ex.C-10 that the said documents are of the cow bearing micro chip No. 900108000007146. The documents relied upon by the OPs are of the cow bearing micro chip No.900108000007144. In our opinion, it is established from the material placed on record that the complainant completed entire formalities for submitting the claim in regard to cow bearing micro chip No. 900108000007146 but due to negligent act of the OPs the same was not settled.

9.                   Accordingly in view of the above discussions, we find that OPs have committed deficiency in service by not settling the aforesaid claim. Hence, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as per the insurance policy of the life risk of the aforesaid deceased cow. The complainant is held entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.5000/- as litigation cost. The OPs are further directed to comply with this order within 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. In case the OPs are unable to comply with this order they shall be liable to further pay 9 % interest p.a. on the awarded amount till its realization. 

10.                 The arguments on the complaint were heard on 07.04.2017 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:21.04.2017

(A.P.S.Rajput)           

  President

 

(Inder Jit)        

               Member