Haryana

Karnal

28/2012

Bharat Singh S/o Brij Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Surender Chauhan

18 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.   

                                                                  Complaint No.28 of 2012                                                                               

                                                                 Date of instt.: 12.1.2012

                                                                  Date of decision: 18.02.2016

 

Bharat Singh son of Shri Brij  Pal resident of village and Post office Uplana District Karnal.                                                                                                    

                                                      ………..Complainant.

 

                             Versus

National Insurance Company Limited,  Divisional Office Railway Road, Karnal through its Divisional Manager.

 

                                                ……… Opposite Party.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

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

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Sh.Surinder Chauhan Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Sudhakar Mittal Advocate for the Opposite Party.

ORDER:                  

 

                       

                     This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that he got his cow insured with the Opposite Party, vide policy No.420500/47/10/9400000156 under the Cattle insurance policy. The cow was of black and white colour and aged about four years. The same was insured for a sum of Rs.40, 000/- and the identification tag no. NIC 06809 was issued by the Opposite Party. The said cow died on 2.11.2011.Post mortem was conducted on 3.11.2011.  Intimation of death of the cow was given to the Opposite Party. However, the Opposite Party repudiated his claim on false ground. The investigator of the Opposite Party had submitted false report with ulterior motive. The legal notice dated 18.11.2011 was also served upon the Opposite Party, but the same also did not yield any result. The act and  conduct of the Opposite Party amounted to deficiency in services and unfair trade practice, due to which he suffered mental agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

 

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Party who appeared and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; that  the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complainant  is estopped by his own acts and conduct from filing the present complaint.

 

                   On merits, it has been submitted that cow  which died  was not insured with the Opposite Party. The particulars of the dead cow  differed from that of the insured cow. As per the health certificate the insured cow was  of first lactation about two months back from the issuance of the insurance policy whereas the cow which died was in second lactation on 2..1.2011. The ear tag   affixed in the ear of the cow was fresh one  and was not mutilated. Therefore, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the Opposite Party after thorough investigation of the matter. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C15 have been tendered

 

4.                On the other hand, no evidence  could be led by the  Opposite Party and after granting sufficient opportunity, evidence was closed vide order dated 28.10.2015.

 

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.                It is not in dispute that one cow of the complainant was insured with the Opposite Party for assured sum of Rs.40,000/-.Tag No.NIC – 06809 was issued by the Opposite Party regarding the insured cow.  As per the case of the complainant the said cow had died on 2.1.2011 and post mortem on the dead body of the cow was conducted on 3.1.2011 but the Opposite Party repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that description of the insured cow as mentioned in the health certificate differed from the deceased cow.  As per health certificate, insured cow was in first lactation whereas the deceased cow was in second lactation and as per investigator report, the ear tag bearing No. NIC-06809 was fixed in the cow after the death.

 

7.                         Thus, the material question which falls for consideration is whether the insured cow of the complainant had died or some other cow had died. Admittedly, the tag bearing no. NIC-06809 was issued by the Opposite Party for the insured cow. The copy of the post mortem report ExC7 shows that veterinary officer, who conducted the post mortem had found the tag no. NIC-06809 in the ear of the dead cow. The cow was of HFX breed, the same was of black and white colour with white switch on the tail. There was no mention as to whether the same was first in  lactation  or second lactation at the time of death. The Opposite Party has not placed on record copy of the health certificate issued at the time of insurance of the cow and  any evidence to show that insured cow was in first lactation at the time of death and the deceased cow was in second lactation. The Deputy Director, ICDP, Karnal also prepared the inspection report, the copy of which is Ex.C5, according to which the cow was same, which was insured and he personally verified that fact. Sarpanch of the village, Gram Panchayat Uplana  also issued certificate Ex.C6 that cow which had died was bearing tag No. NIC-06809 and the same was got insured by the complainant from the Opposite Party. Valuation certificate was issued by the Veterinary Surgeon and he also verified the claim form, the copies of which are ex.P8 to Ex.P10. There is no evidence of the Opposite Party to rebut this overwhelming evidence of the complainant. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the same. From the documentary evidence, it stands established that cow of the complainant insured with the Opposite Party  and bearing tag No. NIC-06809 had died. Under such circumstances, repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the Opposite Party was not justified and such repudiation amounted to deficiency in services.

 

8.                As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Opposite Party to make the payment of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 12.01.2012 till its actual realization.  The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.5500/- for the mental agony and harassment caused to him and for the litigation expenses. The Opposite Party shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the 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:18.02.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.