BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 
                                           Complaint No. 55 of 2012
   Date of Institution: 6.2.2012
   Date of final order:25.5.2016 

M/s Arya Dairy Farm V.P.O. Gulkani, District Jind through its Prop. Mahipal s/o Daya Nand r/o village Gulkani, Tehsil and District Jind.

                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. through its Branch Manager, SCO 14,4th floor U.E. Sector 5 Panchkula, District Jind. 
Punjab National Bank Ramrai, District Jind through its Branch Manager.

                                                          …..Opposite parties.
                          Complaint under section 12 of
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
    Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.    

Present:  Sh. Vikas Lohan Adv. for complainant.
              Sh. J.B. Goyal Adv. for opposite party No.1.
          Sh. P.K. Gupta Adv. for opposite party No.2. 
                   
ORDER:

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant is earning his livelihood by running the Dairy Farm and he purchased so many buffaloes after borrowing the loan from opposite party No.2. The complainant insured the buffalos out of which one buffalo was insured  for a sum of Rs.45,000/- vide insurance policy No.OG-11-
            M/s Arya Dairy Farm Vs. Bajaj Allianz etc.
                        …2…
1206-5002-00000042 through opposite party No.1 at the instance of opposite party No.2 for the period from 9.9.2010 to 8.9.2011. The tag No. of the buffalo was 3768/UI, its horn were ‘Fully Curved’ and switch of tail was white and complainant paid the premium  with opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2. Unfortunately, the  buffalo of the complainant fell ill on 26.7.2011 and died on 27.7.2011. The post-mortem examination was conducted of the dead body of buffalo  vide PMR No.7016 dated27.7.2011 and value of the buffalo was assessed @ Rs.45,000/-. The complainant informed the opposite parties immediately regarding the death of his buffalo. The claim of the complainant rejected by the opposite parties on the ground that deceased buffalo does not match with the insured buffalo.  Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to pay  the insured claim amount of Rs.45,000/-  as well as to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant. 
2.    Upon notice, the opposite parties have appeared and filed the  separate written statement. Opposite party No.1 stating in the preliminary objections i.e. the complainant has no cause of action and locus-standi to file the present complaint; the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts and the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious.  On merits, it is contended that  the ear tag was supposed to have been inserted in the ear as on 9.1.2009 and after gap of 2 years and 7 
        M/s Arya Dairy Farm Vs. Bajaj Allianz etc.
                        …3…
months plus its colour is shining and it proves that it was inserted almost after death. Because its numbered portion is inside the ear whearas it should have been outside the ear. Even it is inserted at inner end of the ear of cattle whereas it should have been inserted at ner outer end of the ear of cattle.  The opposite parties have deputed an Independent Surveyor and Loss Assessor who inspected the  spot survey of the dead buffalo and submitted his report on 26.11.2011. As per investigation report in health certificate the horns of the cattle were mentioned fully curved and switch of tail as white whereas as per description of dead buffalo on spot its horns found small and curved and its switch of tail found black. Even the dead buffalo was in 2nd lactation at the time of death whereas insured buffalo was already in 2nd lactation as per health certificate issued by Veterinary Surgeon on 9.1.2009. The answering opposite party has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that description of the dead buffalo and insured buffalo does not match. All the other allegations have been denied by the  answering opposite party. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering  opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with costs is prayed for. 
3.    Opposite party No.2 has contended that  the description of the buffalo has been described in the health certificate submitted by the complainant. The claim application was submitted by the complainant to opposite party No.1 and claim of complainant has been declined by opposite party No.1. The answering opposite party has not rejected the claim of the complainant  and the complainant has not suffered any 
        M/s Arya Dairy Farm Vs. Bajaj Allianz etc.
                        …4…
loss for any act of answering opposite party. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with cost is prayed. 
4.    In  evidence, the complainant has produced the affidavit of Mahipal Ex. C-1, copy of policy schedule Ex. C-2, copy of health certificate Ex. C-3, copy of post-mortem report Ex.C-4, copy of claim form Ex. C-5 and copy of letter dated 26.9.2011 Ex. C-6 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, the opposite party No.2 has produced the affidavit of Sh. Ram Saran Goyal Ex. OP-1 and closed the evidence. Opposite party No.1 has produced the copy of letter dated 26.9.2011 Ex. OP-2, copy of letter dated 16.9.2011 Ex. OP-3, copy of health certificate Ex. OP-4, copy of statement of Ashok Kumar Ex. OP-5, copy of post-mortem report Ex. OP-6, copy of claim form Ex. OP-7, copies of photographs of dead buffalo Ex. OP-8 to Ex. OP-11 and affidavit of Sh. Navjeet Singh Senior Legal Executive Ex. OP-12 and closed the evidence. 
5.    The counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant had insured one buffalo for a sum of Rs.45,000/- with the opposite party No.1 and the said buffalo fell ill and died on 27.7.2011 and the post-mortem examination was also carried out by the Veterinary Surgeon on the same date but the opposite party No.1 has repudiated the claim of the complainant on false ground. 
6.    On the other hand, the counsel for opposite party No.1 argued that the claim of the complainant was repudiated rightly upon mis-description and concealment of material information. As per spot 
        M/s Arya Dairy Farm Vs. Bajaj Allianz etc.
                        …5…
investigation of surveyor the description of cattle does not match with the cattle insured in the policy. In the investigation report  as per health certificate the horns of the cattle are mentioned fully curved and switch of tail as white whereas as per description of dead buffalo on spot its horns found small and curved and its switch of tail found black. It is further argued that ear tag is suppose to have been inserted in the ear as on 9.1.2009 and after gap of two years and seven months its colour is shining and it proves it was inserted almost after death of cattle because its number portion is inside the ear whereas it should have been outside the ear. 
7.    We have heard Ld. counsel of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file. The main objection of the opposite party No.1 for repudiated the claim is that the description of the cattle as per spot investigation does not match with the cattle insured in the policy. Discrepancies are mentioned below:-
Details       Description as per Health        Description of dead buffalo
         Certificate                spot

Horns     Fully Curved                Small & Curved
Switch of      White                    Black
tail
We have gone through the Health Certificate Ex. C-3, Post Mortem report Ex. C-4. From the perusal of the health certificate Ex. C-3 wherein the structure of the horns of the insured cattle is shown as fully curved and colour of the tail is shown LTW. We have also  perused the document Ex. C-4 post-mortem report wherein the 
        M/s Arya Dairy Farm Vs. Bajaj Allianz etc.
                        …6…
veterinary surgeon in his report described the tag No.96259/09 and description of animal with breed as Murah buffalo with fully curved horns long tail white switch and as such the description of the cattle in health certificate and post-mortem reports  tally with each other. The post-mortem report of the veterinary surgeon is authentic one and admissible under the law and the above document cannot be dis-believable. Besides this we have perused the photo copy of photo-graphs Ex. OP-8 to Ex. OP-11 wherein the tag number is clearly shown in the ear of the dead buffalo as 96259/09. Apart this the opposite party No.1 has not filed any affidavit of surveyor to support his report. The version taken by the Surveyor in his report Ex. OP-3 that switch of tail has been shown black intentionally mentioned white  in the statement of the insured and PMR when it is fully black in the photo snap by us. But this above said observation not supported any affidavit besides this the insurance company has not made any complaint against the veterinary surgeon for preparing false post-mortem report to his hire authority. So plea taken by the surveyor in his report Ex. OP-3 is not tenable in the eye of law.  
8.    In view of the above discussion, the opposite parties have wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant as discussed above in para No.7 of this order. We have no hesitation to allow the complaint of the complainant.   Hence, the complaint of the complainant is hereby allowed  with cost directing the opposite party No.1 to pay the insured amount of Rs.45,000/-(Rs. forty five thousand only)  to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving the certified 
        M/s Arya Dairy Farm Vs. Bajaj Allianz etc.
                        …7…
copy of the order. In case of failure, the opposite party No.1 will pay a simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 6.2.2012 till its realization. The opposite party No.1 will also pay a sum of Rs.2200/0 (Rs. two thousand and two hundred only) as assessed litigation expenses to the complainant. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
Announced on: 25.5.2016
                                              President,
       Member       Member                 District Consumer Disputes                                          Redressal Forum, Jind

                 M/s Arya Dairy Farm Vs. Bajaj Allianz etc.
                        
                   
Present:  Sh. Vikas Lohan Adv. for complainant.
              Sh. J.B. Goyal Adv. for opposite party No.1.
          Sh. P.K. Gupta Adv. for opposite party No.2. 
                   

              Remaining arguments heard. To come up on 24.5.2016 for orders. 
                                      President,
        Member              Member         DCDRF, Jind
                                  20.5.2016
Present:  Sh. Vikas Lohan Adv. for complainant.
              Sh. J.B. Goyal Adv. for opposite party No.1.
          Sh. P.K. Gupta Adv. for opposite party No.2. 
          Order not ready. To come up on 25.5.2016 for orders.
    
                                                              President,
        Member                                   DCDRF, Jind
                                  24.5.2016

Present:  Sh. Vikas Lohan Adv. for complainant.
              Sh. J.B. Goyal Adv. for opposite party No.1.
          Sh. P.K. Gupta Adv. for opposite party No.2. 
                   

           Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.  
                                       President,
        Member              Member         DCDRF, Jind
                                  25.5.2016