Haryana

Karnal

07/2014

Lovepreet Singh S/o Sahab Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

R.S. Chauhan

03 Nov 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                           Complaint No.07 of 2014

                                                               Date of instt.09.01.2014

                                                               Date of decision: 15.07.2015

 

Lovepreet Singh son of Sh.Sahab Singh resident of village Nissing disitrict Karnal.

                                                          ………….Complainant.

 

                                                          Versus

 

The General Manager, National Insurance Company, Railway Road, Karnal.                                           

                                                                   ………..Opposite Party.

 

 

                   Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                   Protection Act.

 

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

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma……….Member.

                  

 

 Present        Sh.R.S.Chauhan Advocate for the Complainant.

                   Sh.Parveen Daryal Advocate for the OP.             

 

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that he got his cow insured with the Opposite Party( hereinafter referred to  as  OP) for a sum of Rs.40,000/- vide insurance policy No.94000000741/12 for the period of 19.10.2012 to 18.10.2013 and the OP issued the tag No. NIC-KNL-08040.  On 11.9.2013 the said cow died due to acute respiratory failure. Post mortem on the dead body of the cow was conducted on 12.09.2013. The complainant moved an application to the OP on 17.09.2013 claiming the insured amount of Rs.40,000/- and submitted  post mortem report, claim form, certificate of Sarpanch, supervisor and copy of the insurance policy but the OP repudiated his claim illegally, arbitrarily and in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  The complainant has claimed the insured amount of Rs.40,000/- as value of the cow, Rs.10,000/- for mental pain and agony and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

 

2.                The OP filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Preliminary objections have been raised that complainant has got no loucs standi to file the present complaint; that the complaint is not maintainable; that complicated questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, the matter in dispute can be settled by the civil  court or Arbitrator ; that the complainant is  estopped by his  own acts and conduct from  filing the present complaint; that the complaint is malafide ;  that the complainant is taking undue benefit of law and that  the complainant has suppressed the true and material facts.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that after receipt of the information regarding spot check of the dead cattle, S.V. Associates was deputed to investigate the matter. As per investigation report, it was found that cow was sick and the complainant had not taken the same for treatment. Thus, there was negligence on the part of the  complainant and such negligence falls under the exclusion clause. The OP wrote letter dated  23.10.2014 to the complainant for  submitting reply for short comings  found during investigation, but he did not submit reply, therefore, his  claim was  repudiated vide letter dated 13.3.2014.

 

3.                In evidence of the complainant, he has filed his affidavit Ex.C1 and  documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C12.

                   On the other hand, in the evidence of the OP, affidavit of Shri Ravi Goswamin, Ex.O1/A has been produced alongwith documents  Ex.O2  to Ex.O9.

 

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

5.                It is worth pointing out at the very out set that there is no dispute between the parties regarding the fact that the complainant had got insured his cow with the OP for an amount of Rs.40,000/- for the  period of  19.10.2012 to 18.10.2013 and the said cow died on 11.9.2013. Post mortem on the dead body of cow was conducted on 12.9.2013 and claim was duly submitted by the complainant  with the OP and the same was repudiated.

 

6.                 The learned counsel for the OP has laid emphasis on the contention that investigator was appointed who after investigation submitted report Ex.O3, according to which statement of the complainant Ex.O5 was recorded wherein he told that  cow was sick and he got the same treated from the Veterinary Surgeon Sh.Tarsem Rana, but Sh.Tarsem Rana gave in writing that he never treated the cow of the complainant and in his way he falsified the statement of the complainant. He further argued that the complainant was negligent in not getting treated the cow properly, which indicates that the cow died on account of negligence of the complainant, therefore, the case of the complainant falls within the exclusion clause and he is not entitled to claim the insured amount from the OP and his claim was rightly repudiated.

 

7.                In our opinion, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the OP is devoid of any force and the same cannot be accepted. No doubt, Dr.Tarsem Rana, did not admit about the factum of  treating the cow of complainant but merely on account of this reason, it can not be accepted  by any stretch of imagination that the complainant did not get treated his cow.  No man of ordinary prudence would let his milching cattle die due to lack of treatment.  In  villages milching cow is considered as an asset to  the family, which provides financial assistance apart from using the milk for proper nourishment of the family members. The doctor  might not have maintained proper record regarding the treatment of cow which could also be reason for not accepting  by him the fatum of treating the cow of the complainant. Moreover, concerned doctor has not been examined by the OP  in order to establish that he has given such writing  to the investigator.  Even otherwise, as per the  post mortem report, the cow died  due to respiratory failure. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the cow died due to negligence on the part of the complainant. Therefore, non payment of the insured amount to the complainant by the OP amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OP.

 

8.                Therefore, as a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP  to make the payment of Rs.40, 000/- ( i.e. cost of the cow) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 09.01.2014  till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.5500/- towards harassment caused to him and for the legal fee and litigation expenses. The OP 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:15.07.2015                                                                            

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.

 

 

 

 Present        Sh.R.S.Chauhan Advocate for the Complainant.

                   Sh.Parveen Daryal Advocate for the OP.             

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced
dated:15.07.2015                                                                            

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.