Sham Sunder, J - (1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 1.12.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it partly accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant) and directed the Opposite Party (now respondent), as under: "For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint and the same is partly allowed. The OP is directed as under: (i) To pay to the complainant the balance amount of Rs. 2,500 with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. (ii) To pay a composite amount of Rs. 7,500 to the complainant for harassment and mental agony and litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with by the OP within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OP shall pay the aforesaid amounts with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization." The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased 10 cows, through State Bank of India, Panchkula, to earn livelihood and got the same insured, from the Opposite Party, vide Insurance Policy (Annexure C -1), for the period from 29.4.2013 to 28.4.2016, for different Insured Declared Values, on payment of premium. It was stated that, neither the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy were supplied to the complainant, nor the same were agreed to by it, orally or in writing. It was further stated that one cow bearing tag No. 131, which was insured for the Insured Declared Value to the tune of Rs. 55,000, died on 30.3.2014. It was further stated that the complainant gave information about the death of the said cow, to the Opposite Party, and completed all other claim formalities.
(2.) Subsequently, the complainant came to know that, as against the insured sum of Rs. 55,000, the Opposite Party, directly transferred a sum of Rs. 25,000, to its (complainant) loan account, in the State Bank of India, without intimating it. On coming to know about this, the complainant sent letter dated 15.4.2014 (Annexure C -4), as well as served legal notice dated 20.6.2014 (Annexure C -5), on the Opposite Party, for releasing the balance claim amount, in respect of the cow, in question, but to no avail. It was further stated that, failure on the part of the Opposite Party, to pay the complete claim amount, constituted deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Party, to pay the balance amount of Rs. 30,000, along with interest @ 18% P.A., from 30.3.2014; compensation, to the tune of Rs. 25,000, for mental agony, physical harassment and adoption of unfair trade practice; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs. 10,000.
(3.) The Opposite Party, in its written version, admitted that the complainant got its 10 cows, insured, from it, vide Insurance Policy (Annexure C -1), for the period from 29.4.2013 to 28.4.2016, for different Insured Declared Values, on payment of premium. It was also admitted that one of the cows bearing tag No. 131, got insured for the Insured Declared Value to the tune of Rs. 55,000, died on 30.3.2014. It was stated that the terms and conditions of the Policy were attached with the Cattle Insurance Policy, Annexure C -1. It was further stated that the complainant never complained regarding non -receipt of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. It was further stated that when the cow bearing tag No. 131 of the complainant died, the claim was settled as per the terms and conditions of the Policy, wherein, it was clearly mentioned that if the animal was pregnant for less than four months, the claim amount would be restricted to 50% of the sum insured or the market value, whichever was less. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.;