Haryana

Karnal

151/13

Harmeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. S.K. Sharma

08 Sep 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.151 of 2013

                                                          Date of instt. 19.3.2013

                                                          Date of decision: 10.03.2015

 

Harmeet Singh son of Shri Gurlal Singh resident of VPO Rattak Tehsil and District Karnal.

 

 

                                                                 ……..Complainant.

 

                                                Vs.

1.National Insurance Company Limited ,Divisional Office, Situated at Santokh Market, Railway Road, Karnal through its Divisional Manager.

 

2.Haryana Livestock Development Board, Pashudhan, Sector – 02, Panchkula through its Director.

.

                                                                        …..Opposite Parties.

 

                                      Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                                      Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.Subhash Goyal……..President.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma……Member.

 

Present:-       Sh.S.K.Sharma  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. K.D.Goyal Advocate for the OP No.1.

None for OP no.2.

 

ORDER

                         

                   The complainant has filed the present complainant u/s 12 of the of the Consumer Protection Act against the OPs on the allegations that the complainant purchased a cow with the  financial assistance of OP no.2 and got the same insured with the OP  for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- vide insurance policy No. 420500/47/11/9400000568  valid from 2.3.2012 to 1.3.2013.The said cow of the complainant died on 13.9.2012 and the post mortem  upon the dead body of the cow was also conducted at Civil Veterinary Hospital, Rahra District Karnal. The complainant also informed the Ops. Thereafter the complainant lodged the claim with the OP no.1 and completed all the formalities but the claim of the complainant has not been paid which amounts to deficiency in services. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services and has prayed that the OP no.1 be directed to pay the claim amount to the complainant alongwith compensation for the harassment caused to him and the litigation expenses. He has also tendered his affidavit in support of the averments made in the complaint.

 

2.                 On notice the OP No.1 appeared and filed written statement raising the preliminary objections that the claim of the complainant has been legally repudiated vide letter dated 18.1.2013. The complainant was asked to explain the discrepancies as regards identification of cow viz to viz the health certificate attached to the Insurance cover and the investigation report but in vain.

 

                   On merits, insurance of the cow and death of the cow and issuance of tag No.NIC-6768 has not been denied. It was contended that the veterinary surgeon has rightly mentioned the age in the health certificate and there was no mistake by the surgeon.

 

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

 

4.                 Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that cow  of the complainant was insured with the OP No.1 vide insurance policy Ex.C3  and the said  cow of the complainant died  on 13.9.2013 and post mortem  upon  the dead body of the  cattle was conducted vide post mortem report Ex.C4. The complainant lodged the claim with the OP no.1 but the same was repudiated vide repudiation letter dated 14.1.2012 Ex.OP3. In the veterinary certificate Ex.P11, value of the cattle has been mentioned as Rs.38000/-  In the live stock claim form also cost of the cattle has been mentioned as Rs.38000/-.

 

                    The argument of the learned counsel for the OP no.1 that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated in view of the discrepancies of the deceased cattle is not sustainable  in the eyes of law because as per evidence on the record,  the cow of the complainant was given tag No.  NIC-6768 and the said cattle died and in the post mortem report  Ex.C4 same tag No. NIC-6768 has been mentioned.  From the photographs also it emerges that same tag number has been mentioned. Therefore, repudiation of the claim is not sustainable in the eyes of law and there was deficiency in services on the part of OP no.1 in not reimbursing the claim of the complainant.

 

5.                 Therefore, as a sequel to our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP no.1 to make the payment of Rs.38000/- (i.e. cost of the cattle) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 19.03.2013 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 present complaint is accepted accordingly. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated: 10.03.2015                                                                           

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                             President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.

 

 

Present:-       Sh.S.K.Sharma  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. K.D.Goyal Advocate for the OP No.1.

None for OP no.2.

 

 

                     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: 10.03.2015                                                                           

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                             President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.