Haryana

StateCommission

A/1293/2018

UDAY SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

VIKRAM SINGH

26 May 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.1293 of 2018

                                                 Date of Institution: 27.11.2018

                                                               Date of Decision: 13.06.2022

 

Uday Singh S/o Ramdhari R/o Village Gahri Rodan, Tehsil Thanesar, Distt. Kurukshetra.

…..Appellant

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 GENERALINSURANCE CO. LTD. servicing office 6330, 2^nd Floor, above Dena Bank, Punjabi Mohalla, Ambala Cantt. 133001, through its Branch Manager.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Ms.Swati Batra, Advocate for the respondents.

 

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          Delay of 45 days in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.    

2.      The present appeal No.1293 of 2018 has been filed against the order dated 11.09.2018 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (In short  now “District Commission”) in complaint case No.416 of 2017, which was dismissed.

3.       The brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased a policy bearing No.59094366 for his 20 cattle with the Opposite parties.  The insurance was valid from 30.08.2016 to 29.08.2017.  The insured value of each cattle/buffalo was Rs.50,000/-.  The complainant purchased the above said buffaloes by raising a loan from Central Cooperative Bank, Kuruksehtra.  On 27/28.02.2017, the complainant tied the 20 insured cattle/buffaloes alongwith two cows in his “bara” (cattle shed) and all the above said animals went missing. He found three buffaloes and two cows, whereas his remaining 17 insured buffaloes died away by falling in the canal/river and even the dead bodies of these cattle heads were not traced.  Rapat No.6 dated 28.02.2017 was got lodged in the police station Kurukshetra.  After this development, he submitted all the documents with the OPs  with a request to release the claim amount of Rs.8,50,000/-.  He requested the OPs to release the insured amount of the above said 17 insured buffaloes, but, to no avail.  Legal notice dated 10.10.2017 was  served upon the OPs, but,  instead of releasing the legal and valid claim vide its reply dated 25.10.2017, OPs wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

4.      O.Ps. filed joint reply. It was submitted that  complainant was not legally entitled for the claim amount as death or loss  due to malicious or willful act, negligence, over loading was not covered. 
Parties are  bound by the terms and conditions of the policy.  As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the claim of the complaint was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 25.10.2017. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  Objections about maintainability of complaint, accruing cause of action, jurisdiction etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint as prayed for.

5.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Ambala has dismissed the complaint vide order dated 11.09.2018.

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

7.      This argument have been advanced by Sh.Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Ms.Swati Batra, learned counsel for the respondents. With their kind assistance entire record of appeal as well as the original record of the District Commission including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

8.      In appeal before this Commission, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that complainant’s claim was wrongly repudiated by the insurance company.  The complainant did not conceal any material facts from the OPs, and requested the OPs to release the insured amount of the 17 insured buffaloes, but, instead of releasing the claim amount,  wrongly repudiated the claim.   The complainant is entitled for the claim amount as prayed for.

9.      On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as per terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant is not entitled for the claim amount as death or loss due to malicious or willful act negligence, over loading is not covered under the policy.

10.    This Commission does not concur with the submission made on behalf of the appellants. A perusal of  Ex. C-9 shows that the claim does not fall under the purview of the cattle policy.  The terms and conditions cast a legal duty upon the parties.  The parties are bound to follow the terms and conditions of the policy issued for insuring the cattle. The OPs rightly legally and validly repudiated the claim of the complainant and same was duly informed to him vide letter dated 25.10.2017.  Mere registration of DDR does not establish that 17 insured cattle went missing from Bara and had died by falling in the canal/river especially when their dead bodies have not been traced.  No other evidence has been produced by the appellant to prove that the cattle/buffaloes went missing or had fallen in the river/canal. Even otherwise, as per terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant is not entitled for the insured amount. Learned District Commission rightly dismissed the complaint.

11.    Resultantly, the contentions raised on behalf of the present appellant stands rejected as rendered no assistance and found to be untenable and the order passed by the learned District Commission does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and is well reasoned and accordingly stands maintained for all intents and purposes.  Hence,  the appeal  stands dismissed.

13th  June, 2022     Suresh Chander Kaushik                        S. P. Sood                                                    Member                                                         Judicial Member                            

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)