Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/15/1

Mehma Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India assurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Kamal Saini, Adv

15 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

 

                               Consumer Complaint No. : 01 of 01.01.2015

                                 Date of decision               : 15.06.2015

 

Mehma Singh, aged about 38 years, son of Parkash Singh, resident of Village Patialan, Post Office Lodhi Majra, Tehsil & District Rupnagar.

                                                                             ......Complainant

 

                                             Versus

 

1. The Branch Manager, The new India Assurance Company Limited,

    Nangal Chowk, Rupnagar.

2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Branch Mehatpur, Tehsil

    & District Una (H.P).

                                                                            ....Opposite Parties

 

                                       Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                           Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

QUORUM

                             MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                             SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

Sh. Kamal Saini Advocate, counsel for the complainant

Sh. Amit Gupta,  Advocate, counsel for the Opposite Parties

 

 

ORDER

                                      MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                   Sh. Mehma Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.Ps.’) praying for the following reliefs:-

i)       To pay Rs.25000/-,

ii)      To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment,

iii)     To pay Rs.12,000/- as cost of the complaint,

iv)     To pay interest @ 18% P.A. on the above said  amounts from the date of death of the cows till realization.

 

 

2.                 In brief, the case of the complainant is that he had got insured his ten cows with the O.Ps. vide insurance policy vide cover note bearing No. 2002, 361619 for the period from 03.09.2012 to 02.09.2015, by paying premium for the said purpose. Out of the said insured cows, the cow bearing tag No. 233353 died in February,2014 and another cow bearing Tag No.233384 died on 24.3.2014. Accordingly, he informed the O.Ps. and also lodged claim with them. Each cow was insured for a sum of Rs.50,000/-, as such, against the said dead two cows, he was entitled to receive insured amount of Rs.1 Lac alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of death till payment of the said amount, but the O.Ps  have released payment through cheque of Rs.37,500/- only against each cow instead  of Rs.50,000/- , which is wrong, illegal and also arbitrary on the part of the O.Ps. He had approached to the O.Ps. time & again and requested for release of the balance amount alongwith interest, but the O.Ps. had put off the matter on one pretext or the other and have unnecessarily harassed him, mentally, physically as well as financially, for which he is also entitled to compensation. He had also got issued a legal notice upon the O.Ps., but inspite of receipt of the same, they have neither replied the same nor paid the balance claim amount. The O.Ps. have, thus, committed deficiency in service and adopted unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint.

3.                 On being put to notice, the O.Ps. filed a joint written statement taking preliminary objections; that the insurance policy in question was obtained from the Branch office, Mehtapur, District Una and the claim was also lodged with the said Branch by the insured, as such, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint; that the policy in question was issued strictly, as per the terms and conditions of the policy; that the claim lodged by the complainant in respect of two dead cows was duly processed, as per the terms and conditions of the policy and the claim amount was approved for a sum of Rs.37,500/- for each cow, which has already been paid to him, therefore, nothing is due, as claimed by the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had obtained one cattle insurance policy covering 10 cows for the period  from 03.09.2012 to 02.09.2015, strictly as per the terms and conditions of thereof. It is stated that the complainant had intimated about the death of one cow, which was insured under the said policy vide Chip/tag No.233384, with the comments that the said cattle fell ill on 21.3.2014 and ultimately died on 24.3.2014. The competent authority had deputed Dr. YPC Mehta, for verification of the said loss, who had submitted his report to the insurance company and the claim was duly processed as per the terms and conditions of the policy and the claim amount was approved for a sum of Rs.37,500/- and the said amount has already been paid to the complainant. The complainant had also intimated about the death of another cow, which was insured under the said policy vide Chip/tag No.981098104233353 with the comments that the said cattle fell ill on 21.2.2014 and ultimately died on 21.2.2014. The competent authority had deputed Sh.Surjit Singh Deol, Investigator, for verification of the said loss, who had submitted his report to the insurance company and the claim was duly processed as per the terms and conditions of the policy and the claim amount was approved for a sum of Rs.37,500/- and the said amount has already been paid to the complainant. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made that the same be dismissed.

 

4.                On being called upon to do so, the complainant tendered his affidavit, Ex. C6, photocopy of Legal notice Ex.C1, Postal receipt Ex.C2, Acknowledgment Ex.C3, photocopy of Insurance Cover note Ex.C4, photocopy of Fitness Certificate Ex.C5 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.Ps. tendered affidavit of Sh. H.L. Talwar, Branch Manager Ex.OP-1, photocopies of documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-23 and closed the evidence.

 

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the file carefully.

 

6.                The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant had got insured his 10 cows with the O.Ps. for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each for the period from 3.9.2012 to 2.9.2015. Out of the said cows, two cows died during inception of the said policy, as such, he was entitled to get a sum of Rs.50,000/- for each cow from the O.Ps. whereas they have released a cheque of Rs.37,500/- for each cow instead of Rs.50,000/- each, which amounts to deficiency in service & adoption of unfair trade practice on their part, therefore, they be directed to pay the remaining amount and also to pay compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss suffered by him alongwith interest & litigation expenses.

 

7.                The learned counsel for the O.Ps. submitted that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum because the policy was issued from the branch office, Mehatpur, Distt. Una (Himachal Pradesh) and the claim was also lodged with the said branch. Even otherwise also, the complaint is liable to be dismissed because the O.Ps. have already settled the claim, as per terms & conditions of the policy and have paid a sum of Rs.37,500/- for each of the cow to the complainant and no further amount is due to him, therefore, the complaint be dismissed with cost.

 

8.                Admittedly, the complainant got his 10 cows insured, for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each with the O.Ps. From the perusal of insurance cover, Ex. C-4, it is evident that the policy was got issued at Ropar. Since the policy was issued at Ropar, therefore, part of cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, therefore, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the O.Ps. that this Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction is not sustainable. The plea of the O.Ps. is that they have settled and paid the claim amount to the tune of Rs.37500/- in respect of each cow to the complainant, as per terms & conditions of the policy. From the scrutiny of the record, it is revealed that copy of the terms & conditions of the policy in question has not been placed on record by the O.Ps. Since, the O.Ps. have failed to produce on record the terms and condition of the policy, therefore, we do not hesitate to conclude that the O.Ps. were not justified in making payment of a sum of Rs.37,500/- and as per insurance policy, the O.Ps. are liable to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- i.e. the insured amount of each cow and as such, they are still liable to pay Rs.12,500/- in respect of each dead cow. They are also liable to pay interest on the said amount and compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss suffered by the complainant alongwith litigation expenses.

 

9.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint, directing the O.Ps. in the following manner:-

i)       To pay the remaining claim amount of Rs.25,000/- (i.e.

          Rs.12,500/- for each cow), to the complainant

          alongwith interest @ 9% P.A.  w.e.f. the date  of

filing of the complaint i.e. 01.01.2015 till realization;

ii)      To pay Rs.3000/- as compensation;

iii)     To pay Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses.

 

The O.Ps. are further directed to comply with the above said directions within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

10.              The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed & consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED                                           (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated 15.06.2015                                       PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                   (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                    MEMBER.