Back
2009(1) CPR 543
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
S.N. Aggarwal, President and Mrs. Jasbir Kapoor, Member
Regional Manager, United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. —Appellants
versus
Rajinder Singh —Respondent
First Appeal No. 1233 of 2002
Decided on 22.10.2008
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Sh. D.P. Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Sh. B.S. Sehra, Advocate.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 12 & 17—Insurance claim—Complainant got 3000 birds (broilers) insured for Rs.1,20,000/- —Claim for death of 1186 birds between insurance period 2-5-2001 to 13-5-2001—Dist Forum allowed complainant directing insurance company to settle claim for member of dead birds—Appeal—Investigator appointed in the case visited the site on 6-5-2001 and complainant could show 157 birds found dead—No material or document produced to show death of further birds between 6-5-2001 to 13-5-2001—Complainant’s claim that 1186 birds died between 2-5-2001 to 13-5-2001 could not be said proved—940 birds were claimed by complainant to have died between 8-6-2001 to 15-6-2001—Investigator when visited site on 9-6-2001, 12-6-2001 and 16-6-2001 found only 186 birds had died—No reason to disbelieve report of investigator—Appellant was liable to pay amount under policy only for 343 dead birds and award was liable to be modified—Amount to carry interest at 9% pa. (Paras 13 to 16)
Result: Appeal allowed partly.
S.N. Aggarwal, President—Rajinder Singh respondent had got 3000 birds (boilers) insured from the appellants for an amount of Rs.l,20,000/- for the period from 11.12.2000 to 10.12.2001. Unfortunately, 1186 birds from the poultry farm of the respondent died between the period from 2.5.2001 to 13.5.2001. Information was given to the appellants in time about this loss and the post mortem was got conducted from the Veterinary Officer on the dead birds after depositing a sum of Rs.2,372/- as legal fee. By the death of these birds the respondent had suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.47,440/-.
2. It was further pleaded that due to outbreak of the disease 940 birds again died between the period from 8.6.2001 to 15.6.2001. Information was given to the appellants immediately about the loss and the post mortem examination was got done on the dead birds from the Veterinary Officer, Tanda after depositing a legal fee of Rs.1,880/-. By the death of these birds the respondent suffered a loss of Rs.32,900/-.
3. It was further pleaded that the total loss suffered by the respondent was to the tune of Rs.80,340/-. The insurance claim was lodged with the appellants who deposited two cheques, one amounting to Rs.740/- dated 18.9.2001 and other for an amount of Rs.224/- dated 18.8.2001 to the respondent in full and final settlement of his claim. The respondent refused to accept these cheques. The matter was taken up with the appellants but without any result on which the respondent filed the complaint in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur (in short “District Forum”).
4. The appellants filed written reply. It was admitted that the respondent had got insured 3000 birds of his poultry farm from the appellants for an amount of Rs.1,20,000 for the period from 11.12.2000 to 10.12.2001. It was pleaded that the respondent never sent any complaint to the appellants. However, on 5.5.2001 the appellants had received telephonic message from the respondent regarding the death of the poultry birds. The appellants appointed V.M. Dogra, Investigator to visit the poultry farm of the respondent and to verify the factual position. V.M. Dogra, Investigator visited the poultry farm of the respondent on 6.5.2001 and in the presence of the respondent, the investigator found only 157 dead birds in the poultry farm. Therefore, the claim of the respondent for 157 birds only was legal and valid.
5. It was further pleaded that thereafter the appellants did not receive any intimation regarding the death of birds in the poultry farm of the respondent till 9.6.2001. However, on 9.6.2001 the appellants again received intimation about the death of the birds in the poultry farm through Punjab National Bank who are the bankers of the respondent. Again the appellants appointed V.M. Dogra, Investigator to visit the poultry farm of the respondent who went at the spot and reported that he had found only 112 birds dead till 9.6.2001. Again V.M. Dogra, Investigator visited the poultry farm of the respondent on 12.6.2001 and found 64 birds dead. On 16.6.2001 again the investigator found 10 birds from the poultry farm of the respondent dead. In all, therefore, the number of dead birds was 157+ 112+64+ 10=343 birds.
6. It was further pleaded that accordingly the appellants had settled the claim of the respondent for an amount of Rs.224/- and Rs.740/- respectively and the cheques of these amounts were sent to the respondent which he refused to accept. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
7. Rajinder Singh respondent proved his affidavit Ex.C1. He also proved documents Ex.C2.to Ex.C12. On the other hand, the appellants proved the affidavit of H.C. Sharma, Assistant Divisional Manager as Ex.R1. The appellants also proved documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R9.
8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits/documents placed on file by them, the learned District Forum accep
