BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.
Complaint No.307 of 2013
Date of Instt. 5.07.2013
Date of decision: 24.02.2015
Satbir Singh son of Sh.Lehna Ram resident of village Birchpur tehsil and district Karnal.
……..Complainant.
Vs.
National Insurance Company Limited Santokh Market Railway Road, Karnal through its Divisional Manager.
.
…..Opposite Party.
Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer
Protection Act.
Before Sh.Subhash Goyal……..President.
Sh.Subhash Chander Sharma……Member..
Present:- Sh.R.K.Kanaujia Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Inderjeet Sachdeva Advocate for the OP
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the grounds that the complainant got his cow insured with the OP vide insurance policy No.4205004711940000453/11 valid from 25.1.2012 to 24.1.2013. The OP issued the tag HLDB-06-166224 to the cow of the complainant and the ID value of the said cow was Rs.40,000/- The cow of the complainant died on 16.8.2012 due to failure of respiratory system accompanied through acute Tympani (Bloat)(Affara). Post mortem upon the body of the dead cattle was also conducted. The complainant gave intimation to the OP and lodged the claim with the OP by submitting all the relevant documents but the claim of the complainant has not been paid which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OP. Thus, alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP and have sought the claim in respect of death of his cow and compensation for the harassment caused to them and also litigation expenses. Complainant has also tendered his affidavit in support of the contents of the complaint alongwith certain other documents which will be discussed at the relevant places.
2. On notice, the OP appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections that the present complaint was not maintainable before this Forum; that the complainant was estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint; that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and that the complainant has no cause of action for filing of the present complaint.
On merits issuance of the insurance policy in respect of the cow of the complainant and death of the cow has not been denied by the OP. It has been contended that the claim of the complainant has rightly been denied because the complainant has not complied with the claim papers within time and the complainant has been informed accordingly vide letter no. 3623 dated 21.01.2013.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.
4. However, after going through the evidence and the circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that cow of the complainant was insured with the OP . It has come in evidence that the said Cow has died on 16.08.2012. In post mortem report Ex.C8 tag number of the deceased cattle has been mentioned as HLDB-06-166224. The same tag number i.e. HLDB-06-166224 has been mentioned in the Health cum evaluation Ex.C9 Therefore, from the evidence and circumstances of the present case, it is evident that the cow bearing tag no. HLDB-06-166224 was insured by the OP and the said cow died on 16.08.2012 as is evident from the Post Mortem report Ex.C8. Value of the dead cow has been mentioned as Rs.40,000/- in the health cum evaluation certificate Ex.C9 by the Veterinary Surgeon
The argument of the OP that claim has rightly been repudiated for want of non supply of tag by the complainant is totally whimsical and devoid of merit because from Ex.C3 it is evident that the said tag alongwith several other documents have been forwarded by the Veterinary Surgeon to the Divisional Manager of the OP. Therefore, rejection of the claim by the OP was not sustainable in the eyes of law and as such the same amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.
5. Therefore, as a sequel to our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP 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. 5.07.2013 till its actual realization. The OP shall also pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- on account of mental agony faced by the complainant and a sum of Rs.2200/- towards 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 file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
24.02.2015 (Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Subhash Chander Sharma)
Member.
Present:- Sh.R.K.Kanaujia Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Inderjeet Sachdeva Advocate for the OP
Arguments in part heard. For remaining arguments, the case is adjourned to 24.2.2015.
Announced
23.02.2015 (Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Subhash Chander Sharma)
Member.
Present:- Sh.R.K.Kanaujia Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Inderjeet Sachdeva Advocate for the OP
Remaining 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
24.02.2015 (Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Subhash Chander Sharma)
Member.
