Haryana

Karnal

133/2014

Sham Singh S/o Dharam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s National Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Abhishek Duhan

13 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                               Complaint No.133 of 2014

                                                             Date of instt.: 08.05.2014

                                                               Date of decision:13.07.2016

 

Sham Singh since deceased through his legal heirs

i)  Smt. Rani Devi widow of Sham Singh.

ii) Abi Narwal age 9 years.

iii) Yash Narwal aged 7 years. The minors are residing under the care and custody of their mother Smt. Rani Devi who has got no adverse interest to that of minor all residents of village Kheri Naru, District Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

M/s National Insurance Company Ltd. through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Karnal.

 

                                                                   ………… Opposite Party

.

                      Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Sh. J.P. Duhan Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh. L.S. Lote Advocate for the Opposite party.

                  

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint was filed by Sham Singh (since deceased now represented by his legal representatives)  u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he had purchased one cow in the year 2012 and got the same insured from opposite party, vide policy no.940000591/12 dated 12.10.2012 valid from 12.10.2012 to 11.10.2013. On 29.10.2012 the insured cow fell ill. He immediately gave intimation to the official of opposite party. Medical treatment was given by Veterinary Surgeon, but the cow could not be saved and the same died. Post mortem on the dead body of the cow was conducted by the Veterinary Surgeon. The claim was lodged with the opposite party, but the opposite party rejected the claim illegally, vide letter dated 29.07.2013,  which amounted to deficiency in service and due to that he suffered mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of this complaint was given to the opposite party, who appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant was estopped from filing the complaint by his own acts and conduct and the complainant had suppressed the true and material facts.

                   On merits, factum of insurance of the cow has not been disputed. It has been submitted that the opposite party appointed surveyor and investigator and as per the report of investigator the descriptions of the dead cow did not tally with the descriptions of the insured cow mentioned in the Health Certificate. Therefore, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated and as such there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.    

3.                In evidence of the complainant, affidavit of Rani Devi widow of Sham Singh Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to C6 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite party, affidavit of  Yaspal Assistant Manager Ex.OP1 and documents Ex.OP2 to OP12 have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                The cow of the complainant was insured by the opposite party and the same died during the subsistence of the insurance policy. However, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that as per the report of the investigator the descriptions of the dead cow did not tally with the descriptions of the insured cow mentioned in the health certificate. Thus, the matter in controversy lies into narrow compass and the main question which is to be decided is whether the  cow which died during subsistence of the policy was the same which was insured.

7.                A perusal of the copy of the health certificate Ex.C3 shows that the insured cow was aged 6 years, having 3^rd lactation, of blackish brown colour with white patches and the dehorned. Admittedly, for insured cow tag no.NIC09815 was issued by the opposite party and affixed in the ear of the cow. The copy of the Post Mortem Report Ex.C4 indicates that the Veterinary Surgeon conducted post mortem on the dead cow bearing tag no.NIC09815, aged 6 years, blackish brown colour with white patches, having 3^rd lactation. Opposite party has relied upon the report of the investigator, the copy of which is Ex.O10, according to which the colour of the dead cow was black and white, whereas of the insured cow was blackish brown with white patches and the dead cow was having horn very small one and half inches long, but the insured cow was dehorned. Photographs of the dead cow have also been produced as Ex.OP4. The photographs are black and white, therefore, it cannot be judged from the same as to whether the colour of the dead cow was blackish brown or black. The Veterinary Officer, who conducted the post mortem specifically mentioned that the colour of the dead cow was blackish brown with white patches. There is no reason to disbelieve the report of the Veterinary Officer, who conducted the post mortem. The colour of the dead cow mentioned by the Veterinary Officer fully tallied with the colour of insured cow mentioned in the health certificate. The investigator found horns only one and half inches long very small. Therefore, on the basis of such report it cannot be said that the insured cow was different from the dead cow. If, a cow is dehorned, then also small horns may appear after sometime. Moreover, the tag fixed by the opposite party in the ear of the insured cow at the time of insurance was found in the ear of the dead cow at the time of post mortem examination. Neither it has been alleged nor there is any cogent evidence which may show that the tag was also tampered was by the complainant, removed from the insured cow and fixed in the ear of the dead cow. Under such facts and circumstances, the opposite party has failed to establish that the descriptions of the dead cow did not tally with the description of the insured cow as mentioned in the health certificate.

8.                In view of the above, it is established on the record that the insured cow of the complainant died during the subsistence of the insurance policy, therefore, opposite party is liable to pay the benefit of the insurance to the complainant. As per valuation certificate, the copy of which is Ex.O6, the value of the insured cow was Rs.30,000/- and the same was insured for the said amount as is evident from the copy of the insurance policy Ex.C5.

9.                As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 30,000/- as insured amount  alongwith interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization.  We further direct the opposite party to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 13.07.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member