State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Company Limited vs Gurcharan Singh on 30 November, 2012
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1350 of 2008.
Date of Institution: 25.11.2008.
Date of Decision: 30.11.2012.
National Insurance Company Limited, having its Regional Office at SCO 332-
334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through Sh. S.K. Passi, Manager, duly
Constituted Attorney.
.....Appellant.
Versus
Gurcharan Singh S/o Sh. Kapur Singh, Resident of Village Kanjhla, Tehsil
Dhuri, District Sangrur.
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated
24.10.2008 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
...................................
Present:- Sh. Parminder Singh, Advocate, proxy for Sh. Paul S. Saini, Advocate, counsel for the appellant.
Sh. G.S. Nahel, Advocate, counsel for the respondent.
----------------------------------------
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
This order shall dispose of the following three (3) appeals:-
Sr. Appeal No. Name of Parties No. 1. First Appeal No.1350 of 2008 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Gurcharan Singh) 2. First Appeal No.1361 of 2008 (Gurcharan Singh Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.)
(both against the same order dated 24.10.2008 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short "the District Forum")
3. First Appeal No.1349 of 2008 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sukhjinder Singh) First Appeal No.1350 of 2008. 2 (against the similar order dated 24.10.2008 passed by the learned District Forum, Sangrur).
The questions of law and facts in the appeals are similar and the facts are taken from First Appeal No.1350 of 2008 and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.
2. Facts in brief are that Sh. Gurcharan Singh, respondent/ complainant (hereinafter called as "the respondent") filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the appellant, alleging that he applied for the loan for the purpose of keeping Honey Bee and to sell Honey through Punjab Village Khadi Board to Punjab Agricultural and Land Development Bank, Dhuri. The loan was sanctioned to the tune of Rs.5.00 lacs by Punjab Land Development Bank, Dhuri and the respondent purchased Honey Bee on 19.01.1999 and 10.03.1999 from Madahar and Rajbir Firm and insured the risk of Honey Bee with the appellant vide Code No.441275 for the period from 19.03.1999 to 18.03.2000 and paid Rs.4300/- as premium.
3. The respondent again deposited another installment in the office of the appellant vide receipt no.02547 dated 05.02.1999 for the period from 05.02.1999 to 04.02.2000 and the amount of Rs.4300/- was paid as premium. Due to summer season in the month of April and May, 1999, temperature rose high and on account of the high temperature and due to the destruction of wheat straw in this period, 220 boxes of Honey Bee were destroyed and some of the Honey Bee also died due to pollution and some fled away and there was total loss to the business of the respondent and it came to an end.
4. The business of the respondent was fully insured with the appellant and the appellant is liable to pay the loss to the respondent. The respondent moved an application on10.05.1999 to Manager, Punjab Land Development Bank, Dhuri about the loss incurred and requested to inspect the spot and to make the payment of the insurance amount. The Manager of the said bank forwarded the application to the appellant, who advised the First Appeal No.1350 of 2008. 3 respondent to submit duly filled and signed claim, witnessed by the Gram Panchayat. The respondent submitted the required form of claim, attested by the witnesses and estimated loss was Rs.2,64,000/-.
5. The appellant deputed Sh. Harjit Singh, IPS, Retd. S.P., Patiala to submit report regarding high temperature in District Sangrur from 03.04.1999 to 09.05.1999 and said Harjit Singh wrote a letter to the Metrological Officer, Chandigarh for sending intimation regarding this fact and he also received a report of Chief Agriculture Officer, Sangrur and submitted his report to the appellant. The appellant failed to pay the loss to the respondent and the respondent served a notice on 03.02.2000, requesting the appellant to make payment of Rs.2,64,000/- along with @ 24% p.a., but the appellant rejected the claim on false grounds and there is deficiency in service in service on the part of the appellant.
6. It was prayed that the complaint may be accepted and the appellant be directed to pay Rs.2,64,000/- along with interest as well as future interest.
7. In the written reply filed on behalf of the appellant, it was admitted that the respondent got insured from 24.03.1999 to 23.03.2000, the Farm from the appellant, but the risk as alleged in the complaint, was not covered under the policy. It was admitted that Rs.4300/- were paid as premium. The respondent has not suffered any loss and the alleged risk was not covered and there is no deficiency in service. In the legal objections, it was submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and has not been filed as per the law. Other allegations of the complaint were denied and it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
8. Rejoinder was filed in which pleas of the complaint were repeated and that of the written reply were denied.
9. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
First Appeal No.1350 of 2008. 4
10. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that it is undisputed case of the parties that the damage caused to the Honey Bee was due to fire which was put in order to destroy the wheat straw in the vicinity and the risk was fully covered in as much as 220 boxes of Honey Bee were destroyed in accidental fire, as is evident from the condition printed on the cover note, as also from the Paras-9 and 10 of the judgment of the Appellate Court dated 11.08.2008 against which the appellant does not seem to have gone in appeal. The statement-cum- representations Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2 are also of no avail, as the same are not supported by any affidavit. The complaint was allowed and the appellant and OPs were directed to pay a sum of Rs.81,900/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of accidental fire i.e. May, 1999 till realization and Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses.
11. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24.10.2008, the appellant has come up in the present appeal, with a prayer to set aside the impugned order.
12. On the other hand, the respondent/complainant has filed cross appeal i.e. First Appeal No.1361 of 2008 (Gurcharan Singh Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.), seeking enhancement of compensation.
13. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the order of the District Forum is not sustainable, as the alleged loss was not caused due to accidental fire and the said loss of Honey Bee due to high temperature, pollution etc. is not covered under the policy. The respondent violated the terms and conditions of the policy and as per Condition No.4 of the policy, the insured was to take all reasonable care to maintain the hives and bee properly, even if they were not insured. It has been contended that First Appeal No.1350 of 2008. 5 the burning of wheat straw is common and any loss caused due to that is not covered. The Panchayat of the village has not supported the respondent and as per the Panchayat, there was no loss and the story has been concocted, just to get the claim for payment of loan to the bank. As per Clause 7.3, the certificate regarding accidental loss has to be issued by the Sarpanch of the village or the president or other officer of the Cooperative Credit Society, Supervisor/Inspector/Officer of the bank or credit institution, DRDA or its authorized nominee, but the respondent has not placed on record any such certificate and the order passed by the District Forum is not sustainable and the appeal may be accepted.
15. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the respondent that he moved an application to the Manager of Punjab Land Development Bank, Dhuri Ex.C-6, requesting him to visit the spot and to assess the loss. Certificate Ex.C-12 is of village Sarpanch. It has been contended that the temperature was very high and the loss was caused and the same is covered under the policy. The District Forum has allowed the complaint to some extent, whereas the respondent has proved that he has taken two policies Ex.R-3 and Ex.R-5 for 78 boxes, but the District Forum has not considered the policy Ex.R-3 regarding other 39 boxes and has allowed the claim under the policy Ex.R-5 only and the respondent is entitled to the amount as per the policy Ex.R-3 also.
16. We have considered the respective submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and have minutely monitored the entire documents and other material placed on the record.
17. The version of the respondent Gurcharan Singh in the complaint as well as before this Commission is that due to summer season in the month of April and May, 1999, temperature became high and on account of the high temperature and also due to destruction of wheat straw during that period, his 220 boxes of Honey Bee were destroyed, because some of the Honey Bee died due to pollution and some fled away.
First Appeal No.1350 of 2008. 6
18. To prove that there was high temperature, the respondent has placed on file the document Ex.C-3 regarding the temperature recorded in the District Sangrur during the period 30.04.1999 to 09.05.1999 and as per this chart, the maximum temperature of 43 Celsius was recorded on 05.05.1999 and on other dates, it was between 40 to 42 Celsius. From this chart, it is clear that the temperature was not as much high as reported by the respondent. In summer season, the mercury rises even to 46-47 Degree Celsuis, but definitely this temperature is indicative of summer season and it cannot be considered that it was so high. The next version of the respondent is that due to destruction of wheat straw by fire, the pollution affected the bees and some of the bees died and some fled away. The respondent has filed his own affidavit Ex.C-14, but no other affidavit of any co-villager or the person nearby has been filed to support the version. As per Condition No.7-III of policy Ex.R-5 and Ex.R-6, for accidental loss a certificate has to be obtained from the Sarpanch of the village, president or other officer of the Cooperative Credit Society, or Supervisor/Inspector/Officer of the bank or credit institution, DRDA or its authorized nominee. The respondent moved application Ex.C-6 to Manager, P.A.D.B., Dhuri to inspect the spot, but he forwarded the same to the Manager of the appellant. The respondent placed on file certificates Ex.C-11 and Ex.C-12. Ex.C-11 is the document which is not given by the persons authorized to give certificate, as mentioned above. Ex.C-12 is the certificate given by Sh. Darshan Singh Kaler, who also gave the certificate Ex.C-11, and Ex.C-12 is signed and thumb marked by the former Sarpanch and Mukhtiar Kaur, Jit Singh, Dev Kaur, Panchs and Nambardar and others. In this certificate, it is mentioned that Gurcharan Singh suffered loss in the month of April and May, as the Honey Bees died due to some disease and the boxes became empty.
19. To rebut the evidence led by the respondent, the appellant produced the certificate Ex.R-1 of Sarpanch of the village of the respondent and other Members Panchayat. It is pertinent to mention here that the First Appeal No.1350 of 2008. 7 Sarpanch is the competent person, as per the above condition, to give certificate and not anybody else. Therefore, the certificate Ex.R-1 is more authenticated and even otherwise, certificates Ex.C-11 and Ex.C-12 given by the above said persons contradict each other. In certificate Ex.R-1, the Sarpanch and other members categorically informed the Divisional Manager of the appellant that the respondent and his son took the loan, but purchased only few boxes and no Honey Bee died. Ex.R-2 is the other letter written by Pushpinder Kaur, Panch, Mukhtiar Kaur, Panch, wherein it was mentioned that their thumb impressions and signatures were obtained by the respondent fraudulently and when they came to know that this was regarding bees, then they informed the Sarpanch and other members that the said paper is bogus and wrong. By virtue of this letter, certificate Ex.C-11 also becomes doubtful. The respondent has also placed on file the newspaper cutting, but the same do not pertain to District Sangrur and in view of the report of the Metrological Department, these news which are issued from New Delhi cannot be considered.
20. From the above discussion, it is proved that the respondent has miserably failed to prove that due to high temperature and burning of wheat straw in the months of April and May, 1999, his bee died or fled away. The District Forum has not considered the above documents and has believed the bald statement of the respondent, while passing the impugned order under appeal. The order of the District Forum is based on conjectures and surmises and is not sustainable.
21. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order under appeal dated 24.10.2008 passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
22. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest First Appeal No.1350 of 2008. 8 accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. First Appeal No.1361 of 2008:-
23. In view of the reasons and discussion held in First Appeal No.1350 of 2008 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Gurcharan Singh), the First Appeal No.1361 of 2008 (Gurcharan Singh Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.), is dismissed. No order as to costs.
First Appeal No.1349 of 2008:-
24. Similarly, in First Appeal No.1349 of 2008 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sukhjinder Singh), respondent/complainant got insured his Honey Bees from the appellant for the period 04.09.1998 to 03.09.1999, by paying premium of Rs.2500/-. Due to high temperature in the months of April and May, 1999 and due to destruction of wheat straw during that period, 220 boxes of Honey Bee were destroyed and the appellant denied the claim. It was prayed that the appellant be directed to pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 24% p.a. fro. 24.5.1999 till payment to the respondent.
25. The complaint was contested by the appellant by filing written reply on the similar lines of its reply filed in F.A. No.1350 of 2008.
26. The District Forum vide its order dated 24.10.2008, allowed the complaint and the appellant and OPs were directed to pay a sum of Rs.47,600/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of accidental fire i.e. May, 1999 till realization and Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses.
27. The respondent-Sukhjinder Singh is the son of Sh. Gurcharan Singh (respondent in F.A. No.1350 of 2008). He has failed to prove that due to high temperature and burning of wheat straw in the months of April and May, 1999, his Bee died or fled away. In view of above facts and in view of the reasons and discussion held in First Appeal No.1350 of 2008 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Gurcharan Singh), the First Appeal No.1349 of 2008 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sukhjinder Singh) is accepted and the First Appeal No.1350 of 2008. 9 impugned order appeal dated 24.10.2008 passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
28. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
29. The arguments in all these appeals were heard on 29.11.2012 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
30. The appeals could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
31. Copy of the order be placed in First Appeal No.1361 of 2008 (Gurcharan Singh Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.) and First Appeal No.1349 of 2008 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sukhjinder Singh).
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Baldev Singh Sekhon) Member November 30, 2012.
(Gurmeet S)