Haryana

Ambala

CC/416/2017

Uday Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO Tokio Gen Inss - Opp.Party(s)

Harpreet Singh

11 Sep 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:

                                                AMBALA

 

                                                Complaint Case No.      :         416 of 2017.

                                                Date of Institution                   :         23.11.2017.

                                                Date of Decision            :         11.09.2018.

 

Uday Singh son of Ramdhari resident of village Gahri Rodan, P.S.KUK Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

………….Complainant.

Versus

1.IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. registered office: IFFCO Sadan, C1 District Centre, Saket New Delhi-110017 through its Manager.

2.IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. Servicing Office 6330, 2^nd Floor, above Dena Bank, Punjabi Mohalla, Ambala Cantt. 133001, through its Branch Manager.  

………Opposite Parties.

          Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

CORAM:             SH. DINA NATH ARORA, PRESIDENT

                             MS. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

 

Present: -              Sh. Harpreet Singh, Adv, for complainant.

                             Sh.R.K.Vig, Adv. for OPs.     

ORDER

 

                             Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant had purchased one policy bearing No.59094366 valid from 30.08.2016 to 29.08.2017 from OPs for his 20 cattle having insured value of each buffalo/cattle Rs.50,000/-. On 27/28.02.2017 the complainant had tethered the insured cattle/buffaloes alongwith two cows in his bara but the same were not found there. The complainant searched the same and found three buffaloes and two cows and remaining 17 insured buffaloes were not found which were having tag No.74401, 74402, 74403, 74404, 74405, 74407, 74408, 74409, 74504, 74505, 74506, 74521 74522, 106800, 106701, 106785 and 106722.  The said cattle/buffaloes have died by falling in the canal/river and their dead bodies have also not been traced out and regarding this rapat No.6 dated 28.02.2017 was got lodged in police station Kurukshetra.  The complainant informed the OPs regarding the same and also submitted all the requisite documents but they lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant got served legal notice upon them but they wrongly and illegally repudiated vide reply dated 25.10.2017.  The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavits Annexure CA, Annexure CB and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C9.

2.                          On notice Ops appeared and filed their joint reply wherein several preliminary objections such as cause of action, jurisdiction of this Forum and maintainability etc. have been taken.   The claim of the complainant is not legally tenable as the policy issued in favour the complainant excludes the claim on the sole ground that death or loss was not covered as per condition mentioned in the policy, which is as under:

                             Death or loss due to:

(Malicious or willful act, negligence, over loading, unskilled treatment, uses of the animal other than stated in the policy without consent of the company.

(g) Theft or clandestine sales, missing of insured animal.

 The terms and conditions of the policy are bound on both the parties and the OPs have rightly and legally repudiated the claim of the complainant and the same was duly intimated to the complainant vide letter dated 25.10.2017. Other contents made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint have been made. In evidence, the OPs have tendered affidavit Annexure RA and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R6.

3.                Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the case file has been perused carefully.

4.                Case of the complainant is that he purchased one policy bearing No.59094366 for the period from 30.9.2016 to 29.08.2017 from the OPs for his 20 cattle having insured value of Rs.50,000/- each. He has alleged that in the intervening night of 27/28.02.2017 he had tethered the insured cattle/buffaloes alongwith two cows in his bara but the same were not found there. The complainant searched the same and found three buffaloes and two cows and remaining 17 insured buffaloes were not found and the matter was intimated to the OPs and requisite documents were also submitted but his claim was repudiated on the ground that claim of the complainant is not legally tenable as the policy issued in favour the complainant excludes the claim on the sole ground that death or loss was not covered as per condition mentioned in the policy, which is as under:

                             Death or loss due to:

(Malicious or willful act, negligence, over loading, unskilled treatment, uses of the animal other than stated in the policy without consent of the company.

                             (g) Theft or clandestine sales, missing of insured animal.

5.                          We have perused the copy of DDR with the assistance of the counsels wherein it has been mentioned that 17 insured buffaloes are missing from the Bara of the complainant out of the 20 insured buffaloes. The complainant alleged that occurrence has been occurred on 27/28.02.2017. We have also perused the copy of insurance policy Annexure R6 from which it is clear that the coverage of the insurance is only accident, disease, surgical operation, strike, riots and civil commotion risk and terrorism and earthquake and terrorist subject to exclusion of death or loss due to theft or clandestine sales, missing of insured animal. If we presume that the insured buffaloes were stolen/missing as alleged by the complainant even then as per exclusion clause as above the claim of the complainant is not admissible.  The plea of the complainant that the insured buffaloes had fallen in the river/canal is also without substance being not supported with any post mortem report of the dead buffaloes and no any evidence on this point has been led by the complainant; therefore, this plea is also rejected. It is not the case of the complainant that the he never received the policy and unaware of the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy.

6.                          Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs by leading cogent and reliable evidence, therefore, present complaint is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 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: 11.09.2018    

                                                                                                                   

 

                             (Pushpender Kumar)      (D.N.Arora)

                                      Member                     President

                                                                   District Consumer Disputes                                                                                 Redressal Forum, Ambala.