| ORDER | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR. Consumer Complaint No. 71 of 2015 Date of Institution: 28.01.2015 Date of Decision: 23.11.2015 Sukhwinder Singh son of Karam Singh, resident of Burenangal, Gurdaspur at present village: Devidasspura, Amritsar. Complainant Versus National Insurance Company Limited, Queens Road, D.O.III, Amritsar through its Branch Manager/ Principal Officer. Opposite Party Complaint under section 11, 12 13 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Present: For the Complainant: Smt.Ruchika Khanna, Advocate. For the Opposite Party: Sh.Sandeep Khanna, Advocate. Quorum: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member Order dictated by: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President. - Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Sukhwinder Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he got his buffalo aged about 6 years insured with the Opposite Party vide policy No.4794/53/09 for a sum of Rs.40,000/-. Complainant alleges that his said buffalo died on 1.11.2009 and intimation to this effect was given to the Opposite Party on 1.11.2009. The complainant had requested the Opposite Party to depute a surveyor for the said purpose. The livestock claim form was also filled and the complainant had supplied all the relevant documents to the Opposite Party. Post mortem of the deceased buffalo was also conducted by the Veterinary Officer, Civil Veterinary Hospital, Batala on 1.11.2009. Thereafter, the Opposite Party had appointed a surveyor, but he did not take any action. The complainant has visited the office of Opposite Party many a times and requested the Opposite Party to pay the claim amount. However, the Opposite Party did not take any step in that regard and kept on delaying the matter and after a long period of 4 years had verbally repudiated the claim of the complainant on 28.11.2014. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to pay the claim amount of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum till date. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
- On notice, Opposite Party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the present complaint is barred by laws of limitation. The Opposite Party repudiated the claim in question and intimated the same to the complainant vide repudiation letter dated 5.4.2010 and the present complaint has been filed after a long unjustified delay of more than 5 years, hence the present complaint is not maintainable. Moreover, the deceased buffalo was not the same which was insured under the policy in question, instead the complainant concocted a false and fake story altogether and manipulated/ fabricated the documents of some other animal to get a claim which is evidently not a genuine one. As the claim of the complainant already stands repudiated on the basis of opinion and comprehensive survey report of the surveyor dated 6.3.2010 and intimated the same to the complainant vide repudiation letter dated 5.4.2010 and the present complaint has been filed after a long unjustified delay of more than 5 years and therefore, no consumer dispute survives. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
- Complainant tendered into evidence the documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
- Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.H.S.Chawla, Divisional Manager alongwith documents Ex.OP2 and Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
- We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
- From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the case of the complainant is that he got his buffalo insured with the Opposite Party vide policy No.4794/53/09 for a sum of Rs.40,000/-. Said buffalo died on 1.11.2009 and intimation to this effect was given to the Opposite Party on 1.11.2009 vide claim form Ex.C5, post mortem of deceased buffalo was also conducted by Veterinary Officer, Civil Veterinary Hospital, Batala on 1.11.2009, copy of post mortem certificate is Ex.C1, veterinary certificate is Ex.C2 and post mortem report is Ex.C4. complainant submitted that the Opposite Party did not settle the claim case of the complainant and ultimately the Opposite Party verbally repudiated the claim on 28.11.2014. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
- Whereas the case of the Opposite Party is that the claim of the complainant regarding the death of the aforesaid buffalo was repudiated by the Opposite Party and intimation in this regard was given to the complainant vide repudiation letter dated 5.4.2010 Ex.OP2 vide registered post, copy of postal receipt is attached by the Opposite Party. Opposite Party appointed the surveyor Er.Harminder Singh Saini, who submitted his report dated 6.3.2010 Ex.OP3 vide which he thoroughly gone through the facts of the case and submitted that the insured never intimated the Bank Manager nor gave any intimation to the insurance company for the spot survey of the dead buffalo. Said surveyor held that all the documents as well as post mortem are fake one and have been procured by the complainant in connivance with Veterinary Officer, etc. On the basis of said report, the claim case of the complainant was repudiated and was intimated to the complainant vide repudiation letter dated 5.4.2010 Ex.OP2 through registered post which was duly received by the complainant. As such, the present complaint is barred by limitation and is not maintainable. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.
- From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that on receipt of the intimation regarding the death of buffalo in question, the Opposite Party appointed surveyor Er.Harminder Singh Saini, who submitted his report dated 6.3.2010 Ex.OP3, as per this report he thoroughly gone through the matter and ultimately concluded that the entire claim case of the complainant was fake one. The complainant had procured the post mortem report of the said buffalo in connivance with Veterinary Officer and declared that the claim is fake and without any merit. On the basis of said report, the Opposite Party repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 5.4.2010 Ex.OP2 which was served upon the complainant through registered post. The Opposite Party has also produced postal receipt in this regard. All this shows that the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the Opposite Party on 5.4.2010 and was informed to the complainant through registered post vide letter Ex.OP2 by the Opposite Party. So, the cause of action accrued to the complainant to file complaint on 5.4.2010, but the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 28.1.2015 i.e. after a lapse of period of about 5 years, which is hopelessly time barred. Not only this, the complainant has also concealed this fact in the complaint that his claim has already been repudiated by the complainant vide letter dated 5.4.2010 Ex.OP2.
- Consequently, we hold that the present complaint is barred by limitation and no reason has been assigned nor any application has been submitted by the complainant for condonation of delay.
- Resultantly, we hold that the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Dated: 23-11-2015. (Bhupinder Singh) President hrg (Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member Member | |
