Haryana

Sonipat

477/2013

JAGBIR S/O RAMEHAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. BRANCH MANAGER GURGAON GRAMIN BANK,2. B.M. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD.,3. V.L.D. BICHPARI - Opp.Party(s)

NAVEEN KUMAR

26 Nov 2013

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

                                Complaint No.477 of 2013

                                Instituted on:26.11.2013

                                Date of order:20.01.2015

 

Jagbir son of Ramehar, resident of village Bichpari, tehsil Gohana, distt. Sonepat.

                                           ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

 

1.Branch Manager, Gurgaon Gramin Bank Bichpari, tehsil Gohana, distt. Sonepat.

2.Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Ambedkar Chowk, Gohana, distt. Sonepat.

3.V.L.D.A./V.S.Bichpari, tehsil Gohana, distt. Sonepat.

 

                                           ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Naveen Kumar Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Ajay Sehrawat Adv. for respondent no.1.

           Sh. LK Doda Adv. for respondent no.2.

           None for respondent no.3 except appearance on

21.8.2014.

          

 

BEFORE-  NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

        SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

        D.V.RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he applied for the loan for taking the benefit of scheme of Mini Dairy School and fulfilled all the terms and conditions of the respondents.  After passing the loan, the respondents have deposited some part payment of loan amount in the complainant’s account.  The complainant has purchased the buffalo of Rs.50,000/- from one Hukam Chand and the said buffalo was got insured from respondent no.2 who issued insurance policy no.420606/47/12/9400000215 valid w.e.f. 28.2.2013 to 27.2.2016.  The buffalo was passed by the committee, which is verified by the respondent no.3 and issued a health certificate  and affixed a Murki in the ear of the buffalo.  But unfortunately, on 18.6.2013, the buffalo of the complainant has expired.  The complainant informed the respondents immediately. The complainant also moved an application to the respondent no.1 to pay compensation amount.   After this incident, the respondents said the complainant that he will not pay the loan amount and he is free from the loan liability and deposited amount will be refunded to him with interest. The respondents further assured the complainant that the balance loan amount will be disbursed to him, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondent no.1 and 2 appeared and filed their separate written statement, whereas respondent no.3 has appeared only on 21.8.2014 and has made a statement that “As per post mortem report of buffalo, the tattoo/brand no.194759 was found fixed in the ear of the dead buffalo and in the insurance policy no.420686/47/12/9400000215. Tattoo number is 194559 which is correct. But due to clerical mistake, tattoo brand number was mentioned as 194759 instead of 194559”.

          The respondent no.1 in its written statement has submitted that  the complainant has applied for the loan of Rs.one lac  and the same was sanctioned to him.  But out of the sanctioned loan, the respondent no.1 gave the first installment of Rs.50,000/- for purchase of buffalo.  The complainant has purchased the buffalo and got it insured with respondent no.2.  But the said buffalo had died on 18.6.2013. The complainant also lodged the claim with respondent no.2, but the respondent no.2 repudiate the claim of the complainant as the respondent no.2 found another tag in the ear of the dead buffalo.  An amount of Rs.37228/- is still due against the complainant as on 31.12.2013.   The complainant is liable to pay the said amount alongwith interest to the respondent no.1 and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1.

          The respondent no.2 in their reply has submitted that insurance policy was purchased by the complainant vide policy no.420606/47/12/9400000215 for the period 28.2.2013 to 27.2.2016 for Rs.50,000/-.  On receipt of the information regarding the dead buffalo, the surveyor was appointed to investigate the matter  and the said surveyor has submitted his report and as per his report, tag number was HLDB-08/194759 instead of tag number HLDB-08/194559 and after receipt of PMR, the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 10.9.2013.  The tag allotted at the time of insurance was not found in the ear of the buffalo, but different tag was found affixed in the ear of the dead buffalo by the surveyor and thus, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 has argued that an amount of Rs.37228/- is still due against the complainant as on 31.12.2013.   The complainant is liable to pay the said amount alongwith interest to the respondent no.1 and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that insurance policy was purchased by the complainant vide policy no.420606/47/12/9400000215 for the period 28.2.2013 to 27.2.2016 for Rs.50,000/-.  On receipt of the information regarding the dead buffalo, the surveyor was appointed to investigate the matter  and the said surveyor has submitted his report and as per his report, tag number was HLDB-08/194759 instead of tag number HLDB-08/194559 and after receipt of PMR, the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 10.9.2013.  The tag allotted at the time of insurance was not found in the ear of the buffalo, but different tag was found affixed in the ear of the dead buffalo by the surveyor and thus, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

          We have perused the insurance policy and  health-cum-evaluation certificate very carefully.  In both these documents,  tag number is mentioned as HLDB-08-194559, whereas in the post mortem report, the tag number is mentioned as 194759.  The complainant in his application dated 18.6.2013 moved before the Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. has mentioned the tag number as HLDB-08-194759.

          In the insurance policy, the name of the financier is mentioned as UCO Bank, whereas the buffalo was financed by Gurgaon Gramin Bank. 

          The respondent no.3 has only appeared on 21.8.2014 and has made a statement that “As per post mortem report of buffalo, the tattoo/brand no.194759 was found fixed in the ear of the dead buffalo and in the insurance policy no.420686/47/12/9400000215. Tattoo number is 194559 which is correct. But due to clerical mistake, tattoo brand number was mentioned as 194759 instead of 194559”.

          No doubt complainant has mentioned the tag no.HLDB-08-194759 in his application dated 18.6.2013. The respondent no.2 has placed the photo copy of tag number HLDB-08-194759 as Annexure R2/4.  Now the question is, if this tag number was allotted to the complainant, then to whom Tag no.HLDB-08-194559 was allotted.  The respondent no.2 has failed to lead any evidence regarding the allotment of tag no.HLDB-08-194559 to any other person and has also failed to place on record any affidavit, name, parentage and address of the person to whom tag no.194559 was allotted.  In our view, tag no.194759 was allotted to the complainant, but due to inadvertence tag no.194559 was mentioned in the policy.  So, the complainant cannot be made to suffer for the lapses on the part of the respondent no.2.  Further only the branch of National Insurance Company Ltd. situated at Sonepat issued the insurance policy for  cattle insurance.  In our view, definitely, the complainant is entitled to get the amount, for which, the dead buffalo was insured.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent no.2/insurance company to make the payment of sum assured i.e. Rs.50,000/- (Rs.fifty thousands) to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of passing of this order, failing which, this amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from  the date of filing of the present complaint till realization.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed qua respondent no.2 since we find no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 and 3.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati Member) (DV Rathi Member)     (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat         DCDRF, Sonepat.

Announced:20.1.2015