Haryana

Ambala

CC/333/2014

PARGAT SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

BAJAJ ALLIANZ - Opp.Party(s)

J.S.ATRI

21 Aug 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:

                                                AMBALA

 

                                                Complaint Case No.      :         333 of 2014.

                                                Date of Institution                   :         01.12.2014.

                                                Date of Decision            :         21.08.2017.

 

Pargat Singh son of Shri Pritam Singh resident of village Subri Farm P.O. Rajokheri, Tehsil Barara District Ambala.

………….Complainant.

Versus

1.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited 167, 182 2^nd Floor, Hazara Singh Building, near Ambala Club, Vijay Rattan Chowk, Ambala Cantt, through its Manager/authorized signatory.

2.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Claims Department SCO 14, 4^th Floor, Urban Estate Sector-5, Panchkula, District Panchkula through its Divisional Manager/Authorized signatory.

…………Opposite Parties.

          Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

CORAM:             SH. DINA NATH ARORA, PRESIDENT

                             MS. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER

MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER

 

Present: -              Sh. J.S.Atri, Adv, counsel for complainant.

                             Sh. R.KVig, counsel for the OPs.

                  

ORDER:

 

                             Brief facts of the present complaint are that in the month of May, 2012 the complainant had purchased 25 cattle and Punjab National Bank Adhoya Branch had had sanctioned a loan of Rs.12,50,000/- with a condition to get the cattle insured from an insurance company. On 25.05.2012, the complainant got insured seven cattle vide policy No.OG-13-1207-5009-00000025 for a period of three years upto 24.05.2015 by paying a sum of Rs.16,800/- as premium. The value of each cattle was assessed as Rs.50,000/- and tags No. BAGIC/52371, 52368, 52369, 52367, 52362, 52361 and 52360 were fixed in the ear of each cattle by the authorized person of OPs. A tag bearing no.52360 was fixed in the ear of a buffalo, duly financed by the PNB branch of Adhoya District Ambala, which was purchased by the complainant from one Rashpal Singh. Said buffalo was declared fit by Veterinary doctor of Animal husbandry & Dairying Department Haryana. Unfortunately, on 15.03.2014 said buffalo died due to illness and post mortem on the dead body of buffalo was also conducted. Thereafter the complainant submitted the death claim of the buffalo to the OPs but they refused to honour the same. The complainant got served legal notice upon the OPs but to no avail. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavits Annexure CX, Annexure CY and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C12.

2.                 Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed joint reply to the complaint. It has been submitted that the complainant had purchased one buffalo from Rachpal Singh for Rs.50,000/- and a tag bearing No.52360 was fixed in the ear of said buffalo. There was a confusion regarding the death of cattle/buffalo died on 15.03.2014 as two same numbers cannot be fixed in the ear of cattle. After the death of buffalo due to illness on 15.03.2014 investigator Vijay Kant Vashist prepared his report dated 25.03.2014 wherein he had opined that Description of dead buffalo differs with description mentioned in postmortem on count of Breed and Switch of tail. Undersigned is of the opinion that there is an involvement of bad moral hazard since description mentioned in health certificate and postmortem report. Hence claim may be settled as per terms and conditions of the policy.  The OPs intimated about this to the complainant vide letter dated 29.03.2014.  The insurance company has righty repudiated the claim of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Other allegations levelled in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the OPs have tendered affidavits Annexure RX, Annexure RY and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R11.

3.                          Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had insured the dead buffalo alongwith the other cattle with OPs by paying a sum of Rs.16800/- as premium and value of the each cattle was assessed at Rs.50,000/- and  several tags No. BAGIC/52371, 52368, 52369, 52367, 52362, 52361 and 52360 were fixed in the ear of each cattle by the authorized person of OPs. Further argued that one buffalo bought from one Rashpal Singh was allotted tag No.52360 had due to illness as per the post mortem report Annexure C5. The said buffalo was physically checked at the time of obtaining the loan and regarding this health certificate Annexure C6 was also issued by Veterinary Surgeon, Ugala (Ambala).  The Ops have repudiated the claim on account of death of said buffalo illegally and wrongly on the ground that Description of dead buffalo differs with description mentioned in postmortem on count of Breed and Switch of tail. Undersigned is of the opinion that there is an involvement of bad moral hazard since description mentioned in health certificate and postmortem report. Hence claim may be settled as per terms and conditions of the policy.

4.                          We have perused the health certificate as well as the post mortem report. In both the documents the tag number is same i.e. Bajaj Allianz/52360 and also the breed of the buffalo is also same i.e. mixed Murrah but as per the version of the OP that the description of the buffalo was different as the Switch of tail is not mentioned in the health certificate but it is mentioned in the post mortem report. However, other description such as tightly curved horns is matching in both the documents. After going through the material such as insurance policy, post mortem report and the health certificate issued by Veterinary Surgeon it is clear that there is no difference in tag number, age of buffalo and the breed also. Though the OPs have heavily relied upon the description of the buffalo regarding switch of tail only but this plea cannot be entertained because in order to prove this version the OPs have not produced any photographs of the buffalo despite the fact that the surveyor had clicked the same during the course of investigation and this fact has also been mentioned in his report placed on the case file as Annexure R/1. Moreover, in post mortem report, claim form and health certificate there is no difference in the description of the buffalo. The Ops have wrongly and illegally declined the genuine claim of the complainant only on the ground of description qua switch of tail after ignoring the other facts which were identical in health certificate as well as in the post mortem report. The complainant has been able to prove his case by leading cogent and reliable evidence, therefore, present complaint deserves acceptance. Accordingly, we allow the present complaint with cost which is assessed at Rs.5,000/-. The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- being sum assured of the buffalo alongwith interest @ 9% per annum  to the complainant from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. However, it is made clear that the complainant would be entitled for the said amount on depositing of non objection certificate from the bank from which he had obtained the loan. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced on: 21.08.2017    

                                                                                                                   

 

(Pushpender Kumar)    (Anamika Gupta)                      (D.N.Arora)

Member                         Member                             President

                                                                   District Consumer Disputes                                                                                 Redressal Forum, Ambala.