Haryana

StateCommission

A/88/2016

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DAYAL SINGH ALIAS GURDIAL SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

D.C.KUMAR

10 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      88 of 2016

Date of Institution:    28.01.2016

Date of Decision :    10.02.2016

 

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Railway Road, Kurukshetra, through Shri B.S. Negi, Regional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, LIC Building, II Floor, Jagadhri Road, Ambala Cantt.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

 

Shri Dayal Singh alias Gurdial Singh son of Shri Sunder Ram, Resident of Village Gisarpari, Sub Tehsil Babain, Tehsil Shahabad Markanda, District Kurukshetra.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri D.C. Kumar, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited (for short the ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated December 23^rd, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (for short ‘the District Forum’) in complaint No.39 of 2014.

2.      Dayal Singh-complainant, got his buffalo insured with the Insurance Company for Rs.30,000/-,  vide Insurance Policy (Exhibit R-2), from 14.02.2013 to 13.02.2014. During the intervening night of February 4^th/5^th, 2014, the buffalo died. The Insurance Company was informed. The investigator of the Insurance Company conducted investigation and submitted report Exhibit R-6. Post Mortem examination was conducted by Veterinary Surgeon, Government Veterinary Hospital, Ram Saran Majra, District Kurukshetra. The Post Mortem Report is Exhibit R-4. The complainant filed claim (Exhibit R-3) with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated vide letter dated 17.02.2014 (Exhibit R-7) on the ground that tag was not found in the ear of the dead buffalo. Aggrieved thereof, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.      After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order accepted complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs.30,000/- to the complainant within a period of two months failing which the Insurance Company shall pay the amount of compensation alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of order.

4.      Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that the tag was the basic condition of the Insurance Policy to identify the buffalo. Since there was no tag in the ear of the dead buffalo at the time Post Mortem examination, therefore the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.

5.      The contention raised is not tenable. The Investigator of the Insurance Company in the report (Exhibit R-6), has mentioned the description of buffalo as under:-

1.	Colour	Black
2.	Horn	Fully Covered
3.	Tail	Switch white
4	Ear Tag No.	OIC/24171

 

 

6.      The description of buffalo given by the Investigator tallies with the Post Mortem Report (Exhibit R-4). The Investigator in his report (Exhibit R-6) has mentioned that “The description of dead buffalo are tallied with the health certificate”.

7.      Even in both the reports, that is, Post Mortem Report (Exhibit R-4) and Investigator Report (Exhibit R-6), it has been mentioned that there was a hole in the right ear of the dead buffalo. Since the description of the dead buffalo tallied with the insured buffalo, so there was no reason for the Insurance Company to repudiate the claim of the complainant. In view of this, it is held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the sum assured to the complainant.

8.      For the reasons recorded supra, no case for interference in the order of the District Forum is made out. Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.15,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent/complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

Announced 10.02.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL