Haryana

Sonipat

CC/140/2015

SONA W/O RAJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. STATE OF HARYANA - Opp.Party(s)

H.S. DUHAN

29 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.140 of 2015

                                Instituted on:28.04.2015

                                Date of order:29.10.2015

 

Sona wife of Raj, resident of village Ahulana, tehsil Gohana, distt. Sonepat.

…Complainant.         

Versus

 

1.State of Haryana through Collector, Sonepat.

2.Deputy Director Animal Husbandary & Dairying Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Gohana.

3.Director Animal Husbandary Department,  Sector 4, Panchkula.

4.The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. R-204, Model Town, Sonepat through its Branch Manager.

                                                     …Respondents.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. HS Duhan, Adv. for complainant.

           Respondent no.1 ex-parte on 20.08.2015.

           Respondents no.2 and 3 ex-parte on 01.10.2015.

           Sh. RS Malik, Adv. for respondent no.4.

 

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 she was having a cow aged about 4½  years and value of the said cow was Rs.40,000/-.  The said cow was insured by the respondents under Cattle Insurance General w.e.f. 13.11.2013 to 12.11.2014 and tag no.OIC 87305 was allotted to the cow of the complainant.  But unfortunately the said cow had died on 28.4.2014. Post mortem of the said cow was conducted by the Veterinary Surgery, Govt. Veterinary Surgeon, Madina on the same day.  The complainant intimated the respondents in this regard.  The complainant submitted all the relevant documents with the respondents, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, she has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In the present case, only the respondents no.2, 3 and 4 have appeared and filed their written statement, whereas respondent no.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.8.2015.

          The respondents no.2 and 3 in their reply filed on 11.06.2015 have submitted that the tag no.OIC 87305 was given to the insured cow and the said cow died on 28.4.2014.  Post mortem was conducted to ascertain the cause and Tag OIC 87305 was found in ear of animal.

          It is pertinent to mention hereby that when the opportunity was given to the respondents no.2 and 3 to lead their evidence, the respondents no.2 and 3 have chosen to proceed themselves ex-parte on 01.10.2015. 

          The respondent no.4 in their written statement has admitted that the cow was insured with the respondent no.4 for Rs.40,000/- and Tag no.OIC 87305 was allotted to the said insured cow.  As per the report of the surveyor, the features of the dead cow do not match with the features of the cow which was insured with the insurance company. The surveyor did not find the old tag on the dead cow rather he found a new tag upon it and as such the complainant has shown the surveyor any other dead cow to extract the money from the insurance company.    Thus, the claim was not admissible under the policy and was rightly repudiated. 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 the learned counsel for the complainant and respondents no.4 at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

          Ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the respondent no.4 wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of the dead cow which was insured with the respondent no.4 and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company.

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent no.4 has submitted that the cow was insured with the respondent no.4 for Rs.40,000/- and Tag no.OIC 87305 was allotted to the said insured cow.  But as per the report of the surveyor, the features of the dead cow do not match with the features of the cow which was insured with the insurance company. The surveyor did not find the old tag on the dead cow rather he found a new tag upon it and as such the complainant has shown the surveyor any other dead cow to extract the money from the insurance company.    Thus, the claim was not admissible under the policy and was rightly repudiated. The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

          In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the death investigation report of Suresh Kumar, Surveyor and Loss Assessor dated 15.12.2014.

4.        After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and after going through the entire relevant records available on the case file very carefully, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to get the relief by way of present complaint.

          We have perused the surveyor report carefully wherein tag no.87305 as is mentioned in the insurance policy, is mentioned.   The cow was insured for Rs.40,000/- and in the post mortem report, the value of the cow is mentioned ass Rs.40,000/- by the Veterinary Surgeon.  In the post mortem report also, tag number of the cow is mentioned as 87305.  So, in our view, by not paying the claim of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant by the respondent no.4, the respondent no.4 has rendered deficient services. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent no.4 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. The respondent is further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.two thousand for deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed qua respondent no.4 as we find no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.1 to 3.

         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:29.10.2015