Haryana

Sonipat

CC/13/2015

SMT. MEENA W/O DAYA KISHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. STATE OF HARYANA COMMISSIONER,2. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER,3. VETERINARY SURGEON GOVT. VETERINARY HO - Opp.Party(s)

KAMAL HOODA

17 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.13 of 2015

                                Instituted on:14.01.2015

                                Date of order:18.12.2015

 

Meena wife of Daya Kishan, r/o village Nahri, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

 

…Complainant.         

Versus

 

1.State of Haryana through Deputy Commissioner Sonepat.

2.SDO Animal Husbandary & Dairying Sonepat.

3.Veterinary surgeon, Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Nahri, distt. Sonepat.

 

                                                     …Respondents.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Kamal Hooda, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Joginder Singh SDO for respondents.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

Prabha Wati-Member.

DV Rathi-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he purchased a cross bride cow and as per thepolicy of the Govt. the said cow was got registered under Regd. No.501/5/2014 with Veterinary Hospital, Nahri, Distt. Sonepat  and tag no.299768 was issued by the Veterinary surgeon to the said cow. Unfortunately the said cow had expired on 3.6.2014.  Post mortem was conducted by the Veterinary Surgeon, Nahri, distt. Sonepat. The complainant has submitted the claim form with the respondent no.3 but the respondent no.2 has repudiated the claim and intimation was sent to the respondent no.2 vide memo no.849 dated 9.6.2014.  The claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that the registration of the cow is not completed within 15 days.  The complainant has alleged the repudiation of the claim to be wrong and illegal. So, she has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents in their reply has submitted that the complainant has filed the present complaint without going through the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy in Mukhya Mantri Gramin Dudharu Pashudhan Suraksha Yojna. The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated.  The cow of the complainant was registered with the department on 28.5.2014 whereas the said cow had expired on 3.6.2014.  As such, the cow had died within one week of its registration and thus, it does not cover the clause of 15 days mentioned in the scheme.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by both the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

          It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the complainant has filed the present complaint without going through the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy in Mukhya Mantri Gramin Dudharu Pashudhan Suraksha Yojna. The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated.  The cow of the complainant was registered with the department on 28.5.2014 whereas the said cow had expired on 3.6.2014.  As such, the cow had died within one week of its registration and thus, it does not cover the clause of 15 days mentioned in the scheme.

          To rebut the above contentions of the respondents,  learned counsel for the complainant during the course of arguments has placed on record the document CZ. The perusal of this document shows that the clause on which the respondents are relying upon and has repudiated the claim of the complainant, is not find mentioned and thus, we held the repudiation of the claim of the complainant to be wrong and illegal.  The complainant has purchased the said cow (now expired) for a sum of Rs.40,000/- and definitely the complainant is entitled to get the said sum from the respondents. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to make the payment of Rs.40,000/- (Rs.forty thousand) to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till realization.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

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

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

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

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:18.12.2015