Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 97.
Instituted on : 06.03.2014.
Decided on : 24.08.2015.
Dalip Singh son of Khet Ram resident of village Bhali Anandpur Tehsil District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
National Insurance Company Ltd. 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.Karun Bhardwaj, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.D.S.Chauhan, 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 buffalo from the opposite party vide policy no.420600/47/12/9400005735 and sum assured was Rs.50000/-. It is averred that during the period of said policy the buffalo of complainant had died on 03.11.2013 and P.M.R. was got conducted by the Veterinary doctor. It is averred that complainant intimated the opposite party about the death of insured buffalo within time and lodged the claim for the dead buffalo with the opposite party and submitted all the required documents as desired by the opposite party. It is averred that despite his repeated requests the opposite party has not settled the claim and vide letter dated 31.12.2013 had repudiated the claim on false and arbitrary grounds. 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 the claim amount of Rs.50000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
2. On notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its written statement submitting therein that on receiving the information about dead buffalo, the opposite party deputed Sh.Karamvir Singh Malik surveyor to investigate the matter who after physical verification of the dead buffalo submitted his report dated 17.12.2013 in the office of opposite party mentioning therein that there was no tag in either ear of the buffalo. So the dead buffalo was not the same which was insured by the opposite party. In the post report there is also mentioned that there is no ear tag. It is averred that the opposite party after legal process of the claim and on going through the report of investigator legally and rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. It is, therefore, prayed that the claim filed by the complainant be dismissed with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed his 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 buffalo of the complainant has been insured with the opposite party company as per insurance policy Ex.C1 and the tag no. of the buffalo is 05142. It is also not disputed that after the death of buffalo the complainant has filed the insurance claim with the opposite party but the same was repudiated by the opposite party vide letter Ex.C7 on the ground that at the time of death of buffalo, tag was not found tied to the ear of buffalo hence “No Tag No Claim”.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that the tag was not tied to the ear of buffalo at the time of death. In this regard it is observed that the other features of the dead buffalo mentioned in Insurance policy Ex.C1, Valuation certificate Ex.C3 & Ex.C4, Health cum evaluation certificate Ex.C5 and post mortem Ex.C6 tally with each other. As per P.M.R. and valuation certificate tagged hole was intact and as per affidavit Ex.C2/A of Veterinary Surgeon Dr. Jawant Singh, the dead buffalo was the same which was insured by the National Insurance Company. 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”. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case it is established the buffalo which was insured with the opposite party was died and hence the repudiation of claim by the opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service 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. 06.03.2014 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2500/-(Rupees two 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 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.
10. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
24.08.2015.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
…………………………………..
Ved Pal, Member.
