Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 393.
Instituted on : 24.08.2018.
Decided on : 25.09.2023.
- Smt. Nirmala Devi age 40 years, wd/o late Vijay s/o Sh. Nand Ram.
- Naresh s/o late Vijay s/o Sh. Nand Ram.
- Smt. Badamo age 65 years, W/o Late Nand Ram
All residents of village Sangahera Teh, Kalanaur District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- The Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board Panchkula.
- The Executive officer cum Secretary, Market Committee, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Ms.Renu Hooda, Advocate complainant in person.
Ms. Chetna Advocate for the opposite parties..
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that Vijay s/o Sh. Nand Ram was in the fields for his agriculture pursuits and he was hit by a Neel Cow (Wild Cow) on 28.3.2017 at about 10.00 A.M. After that he was admitted on the same day in PGIMS, Rohtak. He was operated as he sustained injuries in the chest, shoulder, fracture of palpable left side, multiple fractures of ribs and spinal cord, the respiratory system and lungs were badly effected etc. He was discharged on 31.3.2017 but due to the complications arose on account of the injuries sustained by him, he was again admitted on 03.04.2017 in PGIMS, Rohtak. He was operated but lastly he succumbed to the injuries on 13.04.2017 in PGIMS, Rohtak. As no criminal case was registered because it was not the negligence of any human being, but the matter was also reported to the police, hence the post mortem was not conducted on the person of Vijay by the concerned authority. But in the treatment record it was duly entered that the death of Vijay was due to the injuries sustained by him when he was doing agriculture pursuits and hit by a wild cow. As per the Government Policy the complainants are entitled for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondents and accordingly the complainants applied for the amount of compensation with respondent No.2, but respondent no.2 refused to entertain the application along with the required documents. Being no alternative the complainants had to send the application for compensation along with required documents by registered post. Inspite of that the respondents did not entertain the application of the complainants on the flimsy ground that the post mortem was not conducted. It is further submitted that treatment record is more reliable than the post mortem report. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.500000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from 28.03.2017 till the date of actual realization and also to pay compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has denied that the matter was reported to the police. If the matter was reported to the police then why the police report was not produced. The complainants are not entitled to get any amount from the respondents because the police report and post mortem report have not been produced by the complainants. It is denied that there is any high handedness of respondent no.2. The complainant failed to submit the required documents i.e police report and post mortem report. Therefore, they are not entitled to get any claim. There is violation of the terms and conditions of the Govt. policy by the complainants. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed and all the alleged allegations leveled by the complainants and mentioned in the complaint being false and baseless are specifically denied. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in her evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C18 and closed her evidence on dated 26.08.2022. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.r1 to Ex.R2 and closed her evidence on dated 20.12.2022
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. It has been pleaded by the complainant that the deceased was in his fields for his agriculture pursuits and was hit by a Neel Cow (Wild Cow) on 28.3.2017 at about 10.00 A.M. Regarding this paragraph, a reply was filed by the respondent company and as per reply to this para it is submitted that it is a matter of fact and not specifically denied that he was not working in the fields. Admittedly the deceased was working in the fields. There are two more objections raised in the written statement and arguments advanced by the respondents that the FIR and PMR regarding the death of deceased have not been submitted by the complainants with the respondent and which are necessary for the decision of the claim of the complainant. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record. Regarding the plea taken by the opposite party about PMR and FIR, we have observed that as per the record of PGIMS documents, deceased received injuries due to hit by neel cow and it is the prime duty of the treating doctor to inform the concerned police authority regarding the incident and he should make a call to the local police. Moreover an application has been moved by one Anoop, which is duly signed and stamped by Numberdar & Sarpanch of village Sangahera before SHO Kalanaur regarding the intimation of the accident and to lodge an FIR. He also informed that deceased died on dated 13.04.2017 due to the injuries sustained by him. Hence appropriate steps regarding registration of FIR were taken by the family members but he FIR has not been lodged by the police itself. Moreover just after the incident, the deceased was brought in the hospital on dated 28.03.2017 and doctor himself mentioned regarding the history of accident. The injured person was having roadside accident(hit by cow) and having a history of chest pain in left side. Meaning thereby the deceased suffered injuries in his fields and hit by neel cow when he was doing agriculture pursuits in his fields. Moreover when the deceased did not get relief in his treatment, he again approached in the PGIMS Rohtak on 02.04.2017. The doctor again mentioned the history that patient is a case of chest injury(the history of hit by neel cow) admitted with Cr.No.545685 dated 28.03.2019 and date of discharge was 31.03.2017. As per Ex.C8 page no.19, all the history is mentioned and time of death is also mentioned as 2.58 PM. Is also mentioned that patient could not rescued despite all efforts. Perusal of documents Ex.C6 to Ex.C8 itself shows that after the injuries, the patient took treatment from the PGIMS continuously and died due to the injuries sustained by him on 28.03.2017 when he was working in his fields. So as per our opinion the documents placed on record itself established that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him due to hit by Neel Cow in the fields at the time of doing agriculture pursuit and is covered under the policy issued by the opposite party for the welfare of the farmer and labourer. Hence the complainants are entitled for the claim of Rs.5 lacs under the policy.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we herby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.500000/-(Rupees five lacs only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 24.08.2018 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision. It is made clear that out of the alleged awarded amount 20% amount shall be paid to complainant no.3 Badamo devi i.e. mother of deceased Vijay and remaining amount shall be paid to the complainant no.1 Smt. Nirmala wd/o Late Sh. Vijay and complainant no.2 Sh. Naresh s/o Vijay in equal share.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
25.09.2023.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Tripti Pannu, Member.
................................................
Vijender Singh, Member
