Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 230.

                                                          Instituted on     : 26.06.2014.

                                                          Decided on       : 03.06.2016.

Daljit son of Om Parkash resident of village Chamariyan Tehsil & District Rohtak.

                                                          ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

National Insurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager Outer Quilla Road, Rohtak.

                                                     ……….Opposite party.

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.

                   MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.

                   SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh.Manjeet Sindhu, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Ms. Geeta Gupta, Advocate for the opposite party.

                                      ORDER

SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :

1.                          The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he got insured his cow from the opposite party for the sum assured Rs.50000/- vide policy no.42060047139400001796 Tag No.NIC-02503. It is averred that the cow of the complainant had died on 26.11.2013 under the period of insurance and the complainant informed the opposite party about the death of insured cow and P.M.R. was conducted by the concerned Veterinary Surgeon.   It is averred that the complainant lodged claim and submitted all the documents with the opposite party but the opposite party vide its letter dated 18.02.2014 has repudiated the claim on the arbitrary and concocted facts. It is averred that the act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that the opposite party may kindly be directed to pay Rs.50000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                          On notice, opposite party appeared and filed its written statement submitting therein that an investigator namely Sh. Karamvir Singh Malik was deputed on dated 26.11.2013 and he conducted the investigation and compared the description noted physically with that mentioned in the Health Certificate and found that the description except the colour is similar to that mentioned in the Health certificate. The colour of the cow was blackish at fact but at stomach & rest of body it was brownish. The colour of the cow does not match with the particulars of cow insured by the answering opposite party. Hence the answering opposite party had repudiated the claim of the complainant and the complainant was informed accordingly.  It is averred that the answering opposite party has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. As such it is prayed that  the complaint may kindly be dismissed with a costs.

3.                          Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.

4.                          Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R18 and has closed her evidence.

5.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.

6.                          It is admitted case of the parties that cow of the complainant has been insured with the opposite party for a sum of            Rs.50000/- having tag no.NIC/02503 as is proved from the policy Schedule Ex.R1. It is also not disputed that the alleged cow had died on 26.11.2013 due to Tympany as is proved from the PMR Ex.R6. After the death of cow   complainant has filed the claim with the opposite party but the same was repudiated by the opposite party vide its letter Ex.R3 on the ground that the features of the dead cow does not match with the insured cow. 

7.                          After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated  on the basis of report of surveyor Ex.R5 on the ground that the colour of the dead cow does not match with the colour of the insured cow. In this regard it is observed that the report of surveyor is not supported with his affidavit. It is also observed that as per PMR Ex.C4 the cow of the complainant having tag number NIC/02503 was died on 26.11.2013 and as per Health cum evaluation certificate Ex.R7 cow having tag no. NIC/02503 was insured and other body features mentioned in this document e.g. Species, Breed, hornless, tail below hock joint switch white etc. tally with the PMR. Hence from the documents placed on record it is proved that the cow having tag NIC/02503 was died which was insured with the opposite party. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in 2014(3)CLT 445 titled as The Oriental Insurance Company Limited & others Vs. Navrattan whereby Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Panchkula has held that: “Insurance claim-Buffalo-Repudiation-On the ground that the dead buffalo was not the same which was insured-Held-the Post Mortem examination report reveals that the marks of identification of the dead buffalo are the same which have been mentioned in the Insurance policy-Insurance liable” and as per  2004(1)CPC 573 titled National Insurance Company Limited and another Vs. Roop Dass and another, Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh has held that: “Claim of dead buffalo filed but repudiated- District Forum held that particulars of deceased buffalo did tally with buffalo described at Serial No.1 in the Health Certificate annexed with document of policy-Repudiation of claim on the basis of postmortem report cannot be sustained as tag was not found tied to the body of buffalo at the time of postmortem-Appeal dismissed with costs”.  In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that the repudiation of claim by the opposite party is illegal and and the complainant is entitled for the insurance claim.

8.                          In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is directed that opposite party shall pay the insured sum of Rs.50000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 26.06.2014 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall carry further interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.

9.                          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:

03.06.2016.         

                                                         ................................................

                                                          Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Komal Khanna, Member.

                                                                        …………………………………..

                                                          Ved Pal, Member