State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Uiic vs Gurcharan Singh on 29 November, 2012
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
DAKSHAN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 185 of 2008
Date of institution: 27.02.2008
Date of decision : 29.11.2012
1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Manager, Regional Office,
SCO 123-124, Sector 17B, Chandigarh.
2. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional
Office, Sai Market, Ankur Bhawan, Opposite Polo Ground, Post Box
No.66, Patiala.
3. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Patiala.
4. General Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered and
Head Office 24, Whites Road, Chennai.
.....OP-Appellants
Versus
1. Gurcharan Singh s/o Sh. Joga Singh resident of village Dulwan,
Tehsil Khamano, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib.
...Complainant-respondent
2. Manager, the Khamano Primary Co-Op Agri Development Bank Ltd.,
Khamano, Tehsil Khamano, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib.
.....OP No.4-Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 17.12.2007
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib.
Before:-
Sardar Jagroop Singh Mahal,
Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member Argued by:-
For the appellants : Sh.B.S.Taunque, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh.H.S.Tulli, Advocate For respondent No.2 : None JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER This is OP's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 17.12.2007 passed by First Appeal No.185 of 2008 2 the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib (in short the District Forum) vide which the appellants were directed to make payment of Rs.24,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum along with Rs.5000/- as compensation.
2. The case of the complainant is that he got insured with the OP-appellants 6 cows each for Rs.24,000/-, one of which with tag No.25710 died on 8.10.2006. He submitted a claim to the OP- appellants but they repudiated the same on frivolous grounds. He, therefore, prayed for a compensation of Rs.24,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and Rs.40,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
3. The complaint was opposed by the OP-appellants admitting that 6 cows owned by the complainant were insured by them and a report was received about the death of one of cows, upon which, they first appointed Amrik Singh as Investigator who submitted his report on 4.11.2006 and, thereafter, appointed K.S.Chandhok who submitted his report on 14.5.2007. According to the report of Shri Chandhok, the deceased cow was different than the one which was insured. The OPs, therefore, repudiated the claim.
4. Both the parties were given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their contentions.
5. After hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum vide impugned order dated 17.12.2007 accepted the complaint in terms stated above. The OP-appellants have challenged the same through the present appeal.
First Appeal No.185 of 2008 3
6. We have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
7. The learned counsel for the OP-appellants has referred to the Health Certificate Annexure A4 of the cow with tag No.25710. The colour and natural marking are mentioned as body black colour with white spots all over the body tale long. He has then referred to the report Ex.R4 of Shri Chandhok who was of the opinion that the cow which died was black and white (PMR colour) and differed from the cow with black colour and white spots to which tag No.25710 was allotted. The learned counsel argued that in view of this contradiction, it was a different cow which died and, therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated. This argument was not accepted by the learned District Forum. Rightly so because Mr.Chandhok had not seen the cow which had died. Prior to him, the OP-appellants had appointed Amrik Singh as Investigator and he had given a report in favour of the complainant to the effect that the description of HF cow as mentioned in the PMR/Live Stack Claim Vet. Certificate tallies with the characteristics as mentioned in the health certificate at the time of purchase of the animal. The repudiation, therefore, could not be based on the report of the Investigator.
8. The post mortem examination was conducted on the dead cow and the report thereof is Ex.R11. The doctor has mentioned the description that the cow was HF breed colour black and white and had an ear tag No.25710. The mere fact that in the post mortem report, it is mentioned black and white disbudded ST- black whereas in the health certificate, it is mentioned as body black coloured and white spots all over the body cannot be said First Appeal No.185 of 2008 4 that it refers to two different cows especially when it was holding the same ear tag No.25710 which was insured. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the learned District Forum has rightly allowed the claim. It may be advisable for the insurance company that in addition to ear tag number, they should take the photographs of the animals which are insured by them to avoid unnecessary disputes arising out of the identity of the animals.
9. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
10. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.15964/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 27.2.2008. This amount of Rs.15,964/- with interest, if any, accrued thereon be remitted by the registry to Gurcharan Singh complainant-respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
Copies of the orders be supplied to the parties free of costs.
(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER November 29, 2012.
Paritosh PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DAKSHAN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. 185 of 2008 Date of institution: 27.02.2008 Date of decision : 29.11.2012
1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Manager, Regional Office, SCO 123-124, Sector 17B, Chandigarh.
2. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Sai Market, Ankur Bhawan, Opposite Polo Ground, Post Box No.66, Patiala.
3. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Patiala.
4. General Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered and Head Office 24, Whites Road, Chennai.
.....OP-Appellants Versus
1. Gurcharan Singh s/o Sh. Joga Singh resident of village Dulwan, Tehsil Khamano, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib.
...Complainant-respondent
2. Manager, the Khamano Primary Co-Op Agri Development Bank Ltd., Khamano, Tehsil Khamano, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib.
.....OP No.4-Respondent First Appeal against the order dated 17.12.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib.
Before:-
Sardar Jagroop Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member Argued by:-
For the appellants : Sh.B.S.Taunque, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh.H.S.Tulli, Advocate For respondent No.2 : None JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER This is OP's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 17.12.2007 passed by First Appeal No.185 of 2008 2 the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib (in short the District Forum) vide which the appellants were directed to make payment of Rs.24,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum along with Rs.5000/- as compensation.
2. The case of the complainant is that he got insured with the OP-appellants 6 cows each for Rs.24,000/-, one of which with tag No.25710 died on 8.10.2006. He submitted a claim to the OP-
appellants but they repudiated the same on frivolous grounds. He, therefore, prayed for a compensation of Rs.24,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and Rs.40,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
3. The complaint was opposed by the OP-appellants admitting that 6 cows owned by the complainant were insured by them and a report was received about the death of one of cows, upon which, they first appointed Amrik Singh as Investigator who submitted his report on 4.11.2006 and, thereafter, appointed K.S.Chandhok who submitted his report on 14.5.2007. According to the report of Shri Chandhok, the deceased cow was different than the one which was insured. The OPs, therefore, repudiated the claim.
4. Both the parties were given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their contentions.
5. After hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum vide impugned order dated 17.12.2007 accepted the complaint in terms stated above. The OP-appellants have challenged the same through the present appeal.
First Appeal No.185 of 2008 3
6. We have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
7. The learned counsel for the OP-appellants has referred to the Health Certificate Annexure A4 of the cow with tag No.25710. The colour and natural marking are mentioned as body black colour with white spots all over the body tale long. He has then referred to the report Ex.R4 of Shri Chandhok who was of the opinion that the cow which died was black and white (PMR colour) and differed from the cow with black colour and white spots to which tag No.25710 was allotted. The learned counsel argued that in view of this contradiction, it was a different cow which died and, therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated. This argument was not accepted by the learned District Forum. Rightly so because Mr.Chandhok had not seen the cow which had died. Prior to him, the OP-appellants had appointed Amrik Singh as Investigator and he had given a report in favour of the complainant to the effect that the description of HF cow as mentioned in the PMR/Live Stack Claim Vet. Certificate tallies with the characteristics as mentioned in the health certificate at the time of purchase of the animal. The repudiation, therefore, could not be based on the report of the Investigator.
8. The post mortem examination was conducted on the dead cow and the report thereof is Ex.R11. The doctor has mentioned the description that the cow was HF breed colour black and white and had an ear tag No.25710. The mere fact that in the post mortem report, it is mentioned black and white disbudded ST- black whereas in the health certificate, it is mentioned as body black coloured and white spots all over the body cannot be said First Appeal No.185 of 2008 4 that it refers to two different cows especially when it was holding the same ear tag No.25710 which was insured. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the learned District Forum has rightly allowed the claim. It may be advisable for the insurance company that in addition to ear tag number, they should take the photographs of the animals which are insured by them to avoid unnecessary disputes arising out of the identity of the animals.
9. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
10. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.15964/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 27.2.2008. This amount of Rs.15,964/- with interest, if any, accrued thereon be remitted by the registry to Gurcharan Singh complainant-respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
Copies of the orders be supplied to the parties free of costs.
(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER November 29, 2012.
Paritosh PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DAKSHAN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. 185 of 2008 Date of institution: 27.02.2008 Date of decision : 29.11.2012
1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Manager, Regional Office, SCO 123-124, Sector 17B, Chandigarh.
2. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Sai Market, Ankur Bhawan, Opposite Polo Ground, Post Box No.66, Patiala.
3. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Patiala.
4. General Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered and Head Office 24, Whites Road, Chennai.
.....OP-Appellants Versus
1. Gurcharan Singh s/o Sh. Joga Singh resident of village Dulwan, Tehsil Khamano, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib.
...Complainant-respondent
2. Manager, the Khamano Primary Co-Op Agri Development Bank Ltd., Khamano, Tehsil Khamano, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib.
.....OP No.4-Respondent First Appeal against the order dated 17.12.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib.
Before:-
Sardar Jagroop Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member Argued by:-
For the appellants : Sh.B.S.Taunque, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh.H.S.Tulli, Advocate For respondent No.2 : None JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER This is OP's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 17.12.2007 passed by First Appeal No.185 of 2008 2 the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib (in short the District Forum) vide which the appellants were directed to make payment of Rs.24,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum along with Rs.5000/- as compensation.
2. The case of the complainant is that he got insured with the OP-appellants 6 cows each for Rs.24,000/-, one of which with tag No.25710 died on 8.10.2006. He submitted a claim to the OP-
appellants but they repudiated the same on frivolous grounds. He, therefore, prayed for a compensation of Rs.24,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and Rs.40,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
3. The complaint was opposed by the OP-appellants admitting that 6 cows owned by the complainant were insured by them and a report was received about the death of one of cows, upon which, they first appointed Amrik Singh as Investigator who submitted his report on 4.11.2006 and, thereafter, appointed K.S.Chandhok who submitted his report on 14.5.2007. According to the report of Shri Chandhok, the deceased cow was different than the one which was insured. The OPs, therefore, repudiated the claim.
4. Both the parties were given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their contentions.
5. After hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum vide impugned order dated 17.12.2007 accepted the complaint in terms stated above. The OP-appellants have challenged the same through the present appeal.
First Appeal No.185 of 2008 3
6. We have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
7. The learned counsel for the OP-appellants has referred to the Health Certificate Annexure A4 of the cow with tag No.25710. The colour and natural marking are mentioned as body black colour with white spots all over the body tale long. He has then referred to the report Ex.R4 of Shri Chandhok who was of the opinion that the cow which died was black and white (PMR colour) and differed from the cow with black colour and white spots to which tag No.25710 was allotted. The learned counsel argued that in view of this contradiction, it was a different cow which died and, therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated. This argument was not accepted by the learned District Forum. Rightly so because Mr.Chandhok had not seen the cow which had died. Prior to him, the OP-appellants had appointed Amrik Singh as Investigator and he had given a report in favour of the complainant to the effect that the description of HF cow as mentioned in the PMR/Live Stack Claim Vet. Certificate tallies with the characteristics as mentioned in the health certificate at the time of purchase of the animal. The repudiation, therefore, could not be based on the report of the Investigator.
8. The post mortem examination was conducted on the dead cow and the report thereof is Ex.R11. The doctor has mentioned the description that the cow was HF breed colour black and white and had an ear tag No.25710. The mere fact that in the post mortem report, it is mentioned black and white disbudded ST- black whereas in the health certificate, it is mentioned as body black coloured and white spots all over the body cannot be said First Appeal No.185 of 2008 4 that it refers to two different cows especially when it was holding the same ear tag No.25710 which was insured. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the learned District Forum has rightly allowed the claim. It may be advisable for the insurance company that in addition to ear tag number, they should take the photographs of the animals which are insured by them to avoid unnecessary disputes arising out of the identity of the animals.
9. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
10. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.15964/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 27.2.2008. This amount of Rs.15,964/- with interest, if any, accrued thereon be remitted by the registry to Gurcharan Singh complainant-respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
Copies of the orders be supplied to the parties free of costs.
(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER November 29, 2012.
Paritosh PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DAKSHAN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. 185 of 2008 Date of institution: 27.02.2008 Date of decision : 29.11.2012
1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Manager, Regional Office, SCO 123-124, Sector 17B, Chandigarh.
2. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Sai Market, Ankur Bhawan, Opposite Polo Ground, Post Box No.66, Patiala.
3. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Patiala.
4. General Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered and Head Office 24, Whites Road, Chennai.
.....OP-Appellants Versus
1. Gurcharan Singh s/o Sh. Joga Singh resident of village Dulwan, Tehsil Khamano, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib.
...Complainant-respondent
2. Manager, the Khamano Primary Co-Op Agri Development Bank Ltd., Khamano, Tehsil Khamano, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib.
.....OP No.4-Respondent First Appeal against the order dated 17.12.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib.
Before:-
Sardar Jagroop Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member Argued by:-
For the appellants : Sh.B.S.Taunque, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh.H.S.Tulli, Advocate For respondent No.2 : None JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER This is OP's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 17.12.2007 passed by First Appeal No.185 of 2008 2 the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib (in short the District Forum) vide which the appellants were directed to make payment of Rs.24,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum along with Rs.5000/- as compensation.
2. The case of the complainant is that he got insured with the OP-appellants 6 cows each for Rs.24,000/-, one of which with tag No.25710 died on 8.10.2006. He submitted a claim to the OP-
appellants but they repudiated the same on frivolous grounds. He, therefore, prayed for a compensation of Rs.24,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and Rs.40,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
3. The complaint was opposed by the OP-appellants admitting that 6 cows owned by the complainant were insured by them and a report was received about the death of one of cows, upon which, they first appointed Amrik Singh as Investigator who submitted his report on 4.11.2006 and, thereafter, appointed K.S.Chandhok who submitted his report on 14.5.2007. According to the report of Shri Chandhok, the deceased cow was different than the one which was insured. The OPs, therefore, repudiated the claim.
4. Both the parties were given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their contentions.
5. After hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum vide impugned order dated 17.12.2007 accepted the complaint in terms stated above. The OP-appellants have challenged the same through the present appeal.
First Appeal No.185 of 2008 3
6. We have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
7. The learned counsel for the OP-appellants has referred to the Health Certificate Annexure A4 of the cow with tag No.25710. The colour and natural marking are mentioned as body black colour with white spots all over the body tale long. He has then referred to the report Ex.R4 of Shri Chandhok who was of the opinion that the cow which died was black and white (PMR colour) and differed from the cow with black colour and white spots to which tag No.25710 was allotted. The learned counsel argued that in view of this contradiction, it was a different cow which died and, therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated. This argument was not accepted by the learned District Forum. Rightly so because Mr.Chandhok had not seen the cow which had died. Prior to him, the OP-appellants had appointed Amrik Singh as Investigator and he had given a report in favour of the complainant to the effect that the description of HF cow as mentioned in the PMR/Live Stack Claim Vet. Certificate tallies with the characteristics as mentioned in the health certificate at the time of purchase of the animal. The repudiation, therefore, could not be based on the report of the Investigator.
8. The post mortem examination was conducted on the dead cow and the report thereof is Ex.R11. The doctor has mentioned the description that the cow was HF breed colour black and white and had an ear tag No.25710. The mere fact that in the post mortem report, it is mentioned black and white disbudded ST- black whereas in the health certificate, it is mentioned as body black coloured and white spots all over the body cannot be said First Appeal No.185 of 2008 4 that it refers to two different cows especially when it was holding the same ear tag No.25710 which was insured. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the learned District Forum has rightly allowed the claim. It may be advisable for the insurance company that in addition to ear tag number, they should take the photographs of the animals which are insured by them to avoid unnecessary disputes arising out of the identity of the animals.
9. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
10. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.15964/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 27.2.2008. This amount of Rs.15,964/- with interest, if any, accrued thereon be remitted by the registry to Gurcharan Singh complainant-respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
Copies of the orders be supplied to the parties free of costs.
(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER November 29, 2012.
Paritosh PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DAKSHAN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. 185 of 2008 Date of institution: 27.02.2008 Date of decision : 29.11.2012
1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Manager, Regional Office, SCO 123-124, Sector 17B, Chandigarh.
2. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Sai Market, Ankur Bhawan, Opposite Polo Ground, Post Box No.66, Patiala.
3. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Patiala.
4. General Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered and Head Office 24, Whites Road, Chennai.
.....OP-Appellants Versus
1. Gurcharan Singh s/o Sh. Joga Singh resident of village Dulwan, Tehsil Khamano, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib.
...Complainant-respondent
2. Manager, the Khamano Primary Co-Op Agri Development Bank Ltd., Khamano, Tehsil Khamano, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib.
.....OP No.4-Respondent First Appeal against the order dated 17.12.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib.
Before:-
Sardar Jagroop Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member Argued by:-
For the appellants : Sh.B.S.Taunque, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh.H.S.Tulli, Advocate For respondent No.2 : None JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER This is OP's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 17.12.2007 passed by First Appeal No.185 of 2008 2 the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib (in short the District Forum) vide which the appellants were directed to make payment of Rs.24,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum along with Rs.5000/- as compensation.
2. The case of the complainant is that he got insured with the OP-appellants 6 cows each for Rs.24,000/-, one of which with tag No.25710 died on 8.10.2006. He submitted a claim to the OP-
appellants but they repudiated the same on frivolous grounds. He, therefore, prayed for a compensation of Rs.24,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and Rs.40,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
3. The complaint was opposed by the OP-appellants admitting that 6 cows owned by the complainant were insured by them and a report was received about the death of one of cows, upon which, they first appointed Amrik Singh as Investigator who submitted his report on 4.11.2006 and, thereafter, appointed K.S.Chandhok who submitted his report on 14.5.2007. According to the report of Shri Chandhok, the deceased cow was different than the one which was insured. The OPs, therefore, repudiated the claim.
4. Both the parties were given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their contentions.
5. After hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum vide impugned order dated 17.12.2007 accepted the complaint in terms stated above. The OP-appellants have challenged the same through the present appeal.
First Appeal No.185 of 2008 3
6. We have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
7. The learned counsel for the OP-appellants has referred to the Health Certificate Annexure A4 of the cow with tag No.25710. The colour and natural marking are mentioned as body black colour with white spots all over the body tale long. He has then referred to the report Ex.R4 of Shri Chandhok who was of the opinion that the cow which died was black and white (PMR colour) and differed from the cow with black colour and white spots to which tag No.25710 was allotted. The learned counsel argued that in view of this contradiction, it was a different cow which died and, therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated. This argument was not accepted by the learned District Forum. Rightly so because Mr.Chandhok had not seen the cow which had died. Prior to him, the OP-appellants had appointed Amrik Singh as Investigator and he had given a report in favour of the complainant to the effect that the description of HF cow as mentioned in the PMR/Live Stack Claim Vet. Certificate tallies with the characteristics as mentioned in the health certificate at the time of purchase of the animal. The repudiation, therefore, could not be based on the report of the Investigator.
8. The post mortem examination was conducted on the dead cow and the report thereof is Ex.R11. The doctor has mentioned the description that the cow was HF breed colour black and white and had an ear tag No.25710. The mere fact that in the post mortem report, it is mentioned black and white disbudded ST- black whereas in the health certificate, it is mentioned as body black coloured and white spots all over the body cannot be said First Appeal No.185 of 2008 4 that it refers to two different cows especially when it was holding the same ear tag No.25710 which was insured. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the learned District Forum has rightly allowed the claim. It may be advisable for the insurance company that in addition to ear tag number, they should take the photographs of the animals which are insured by them to avoid unnecessary disputes arising out of the identity of the animals.
9. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
10. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.15964/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 27.2.2008. This amount of Rs.15,964/- with interest, if any, accrued thereon be remitted by the registry to Gurcharan Singh complainant-respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
Copies of the orders be supplied to the parties free of costs.
(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER November 29, 2012.
Paritosh PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DAKSHAN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. 185 of 2008 Date of institution: 27.02.2008 Date of decision : 29.11.2012
1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Manager, Regional Office, SCO 123-124, Sector 17B, Chandigarh.
2. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Sai Market, Ankur Bhawan, Opposite Polo Ground, Post Box No.66, Patiala.
3. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Patiala.
4. General Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered and Head Office 24, Whites Road, Chennai.
.....OP-Appellants Versus
1. Gurcharan Singh s/o Sh. Joga Singh resident of village Dulwan, Tehsil Khamano, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib.
...Complainant-respondent
2. Manager, the Khamano Primary Co-Op Agri Development Bank Ltd., Khamano, Tehsil Khamano, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib.
.....OP No.4-Respondent First Appeal against the order dated 17.12.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib.
Before:-
Sardar Jagroop Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member Argued by:-
For the appellants : Sh.B.S.Taunque, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh.H.S.Tulli, Advocate For respondent No.2 : None JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER This is OP's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 17.12.2007 passed by First Appeal No.185 of 2008 2 the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib (in short the District Forum) vide which the appellants were directed to make payment of Rs.24,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum along with Rs.5000/- as compensation.
2. The case of the complainant is that he got insured with the OP-appellants 6 cows each for Rs.24,000/-, one of which with tag No.25710 died on 8.10.2006. He submitted a claim to the OP-
appellants but they repudiated the same on frivolous grounds. He, therefore, prayed for a compensation of Rs.24,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and Rs.40,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
3. The complaint was opposed by the OP-appellants admitting that 6 cows owned by the complainant were insured by them and a report was received about the death of one of cows, upon which, they first appointed Amrik Singh as Investigator who submitted his report on 4.11.2006 and, thereafter, appointed K.S.Chandhok who submitted his report on 14.5.2007. According to the report of Shri Chandhok, the deceased cow was different than the one which was insured. The OPs, therefore, repudiated the claim.
4. Both the parties were given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their contentions.
5. After hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum vide impugned order dated 17.12.2007 accepted the complaint in terms stated above. The OP-appellants have challenged the same through the present appeal.
First Appeal No.185 of 2008 3
6. We have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
7. The learned counsel for the OP-appellants has referred to the Health Certificate Annexure A4 of the cow with tag No.25710. The colour and natural marking are mentioned as body black colour with white spots all over the body tale long. He has then referred to the report Ex.R4 of Shri Chandhok who was of the opinion that the cow which died was black and white (PMR colour) and differed from the cow with black colour and white spots to which tag No.25710 was allotted. The learned counsel argued that in view of this contradiction, it was a different cow which died and, therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated. This argument was not accepted by the learned District Forum. Rightly so because Mr.Chandhok had not seen the cow which had died. Prior to him, the OP-appellants had appointed Amrik Singh as Investigator and he had given a report in favour of the complainant to the effect that the description of HF cow as mentioned in the PMR/Live Stack Claim Vet. Certificate tallies with the characteristics as mentioned in the health certificate at the time of purchase of the animal. The repudiation, therefore, could not be based on the report of the Investigator.
8. The post mortem examination was conducted on the dead cow and the report thereof is Ex.R11. The doctor has mentioned the description that the cow was HF breed colour black and white and had an ear tag No.25710. The mere fact that in the post mortem report, it is mentioned black and white disbudded ST- black whereas in the health certificate, it is mentioned as body black coloured and white spots all over the body cannot be said First Appeal No.185 of 2008 4 that it refers to two different cows especially when it was holding the same ear tag No.25710 which was insured. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the learned District Forum has rightly allowed the claim. It may be advisable for the insurance company that in addition to ear tag number, they should take the photographs of the animals which are insured by them to avoid unnecessary disputes arising out of the identity of the animals.
9. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
10. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.15964/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 27.2.2008. This amount of Rs.15,964/- with interest, if any, accrued thereon be remitted by the registry to Gurcharan Singh complainant-respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
Copies of the orders be supplied to the parties free of costs.
(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER November 29, 2012.
Paritosh PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DAKSHAN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. 185 of 2008 Date of institution: 27.02.2008 Date of decision : 29.11.2012
1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Manager, Regional Office, SCO 123-124, Sector 17B, Chandigarh.
2. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Sai Market, Ankur Bhawan, Opposite Polo Ground, Post Box No.66, Patiala.
3. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Patiala.
4. General Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered and Head Office 24, Whites Road, Chennai.
.....OP-Appellants Versus
1. Gurcharan Singh s/o Sh. Joga Singh resident of village Dulwan, Tehsil Khamano, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib.
...Complainant-respondent
2. Manager, the Khamano Primary Co-Op Agri Development Bank Ltd., Khamano, Tehsil Khamano, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib.
.....OP No.4-Respondent First Appeal against the order dated 17.12.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib.
Before:-
Sardar Jagroop Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member Argued by:-
For the appellants : Sh.B.S.Taunque, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh.H.S.Tulli, Advocate For respondent No.2 : None JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER This is OP's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 17.12.2007 passed by First Appeal No.185 of 2008 2 the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib (in short the District Forum) vide which the appellants were directed to make payment of Rs.24,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum along with Rs.5000/- as compensation.
2. The case of the complainant is that he got insured with the OP-appellants 6 cows each for Rs.24,000/-, one of which with tag No.25710 died on 8.10.2006. He submitted a claim to the OP-
appellants but they repudiated the same on frivolous grounds. He, therefore, prayed for a compensation of Rs.24,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and Rs.40,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
3. The complaint was opposed by the OP-appellants admitting that 6 cows owned by the complainant were insured by them and a report was received about the death of one of cows, upon which, they first appointed Amrik Singh as Investigator who submitted his report on 4.11.2006 and, thereafter, appointed K.S.Chandhok who submitted his report on 14.5.2007. According to the report of Shri Chandhok, the deceased cow was different than the one which was insured. The OPs, therefore, repudiated the claim.
4. Both the parties were given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their contentions.
5. After hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum vide impugned order dated 17.12.2007 accepted the complaint in terms stated above. The OP-appellants have challenged the same through the present appeal.
First Appeal No.185 of 2008 3
6. We have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
7. The learned counsel for the OP-appellants has referred to the Health Certificate Annexure A4 of the cow with tag No.25710. The colour and natural marking are mentioned as body black colour with white spots all over the body tale long. He has then referred to the report Ex.R4 of Shri Chandhok who was of the opinion that the cow which died was black and white (PMR colour) and differed from the cow with black colour and white spots to which tag No.25710 was allotted. The learned counsel argued that in view of this contradiction, it was a different cow which died and, therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated. This argument was not accepted by the learned District Forum. Rightly so because Mr.Chandhok had not seen the cow which had died. Prior to him, the OP-appellants had appointed Amrik Singh as Investigator and he had given a report in favour of the complainant to the effect that the description of HF cow as mentioned in the PMR/Live Stack Claim Vet. Certificate tallies with the characteristics as mentioned in the health certificate at the time of purchase of the animal. The repudiation, therefore, could not be based on the report of the Investigator.
8. The post mortem examination was conducted on the dead cow and the report thereof is Ex.R11. The doctor has mentioned the description that the cow was HF breed colour black and white and had an ear tag No.25710. The mere fact that in the post mortem report, it is mentioned black and white disbudded ST- black whereas in the health certificate, it is mentioned as body black coloured and white spots all over the body cannot be said First Appeal No.185 of 2008 4 that it refers to two different cows especially when it was holding the same ear tag No.25710 which was insured. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the learned District Forum has rightly allowed the claim. It may be advisable for the insurance company that in addition to ear tag number, they should take the photographs of the animals which are insured by them to avoid unnecessary disputes arising out of the identity of the animals.
9. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
10. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.15964/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 27.2.2008. This amount of Rs.15,964/- with interest, if any, accrued thereon be remitted by the registry to Gurcharan Singh complainant-respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
Copies of the orders be supplied to the parties free of costs.
(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER November 29, 2012.
Paritosh