Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 62.
Instituted on : 25.01.2017.
Decided on : 10.12.2018.
Jasbir son of Lilu Ram, Resident of Village Bhaini Bharo, Tehsil Meham, District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
The National Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office-1, Outer Quilla Road, Rohtak, through its Branch Manager.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Sandeep Verma, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Deepak Bhardwaj, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is a agriculturist and was owner of a buffalo of murrah breed and the same was got insured with the OP and the said buffalo was also tagged with tag bearing No. HLDB14/100199. The said buffalo was medically examined by the veterinary surgeon and the value of the same was assessed as Rs. 50,000/- for claim purposes and health-cum-evaluation certificate was issued in complainant’s favour. At the time of insurance, buffalo of the complainant was quite healthy and was giving 14 liter milk and complainant used to sell the same and earn for his livelihood. The buffalo of the complainant was fell ill and died on 02.11.2013.The postmortem of the buffalo in question was also conducted by the veterinary surgeon of Government Veterinary Hospital, Bhaini Bharo. After that complainant intimated the respondent for the claim of his insured buffalo and submitted all the relevant documents alongwith buffalo’s postmortem report etc. to the OP and applied for the claim. But even after passing a sufficient long period, the officials of the respondent have not settled the claim of the complainant. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay insured sum i.e. Rs. 50,000/- alongwith interest 18% per annum since the death of buffalo till its actual realization alongwith Rs. 50,000/- as compensation as well as Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that policy was issued to some other buffalo whereas the died buffalo not belongs to the insured and not the same buffalo which was insured by the OP. That on receiving the information from the insured on 02.11.2013 for claim regarding the death of the buffalo of the insured, the OP on the same day took immediate necessary action and appointed investigator Sh. Tarun Dahiya for investigation of the claim case and after doing the same, he submitted his report vide Ref. No. TD/OIC/RTK/CATTLE/175/13 dated 12.12.2013. After considering all the aspect of the claim, investigation report and as per term and condition of the policy, the OP repudiated the claim of the complainant vide repudiation letter dated 13.01.2014 on the ground that buffalo died on 03.11.2013 does not match with the particulars of buffalo insured with the company. That the complainant is not entitled for any claim from the OP. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua the OP.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and has closed his evidence. Ld. counsel for the OP has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R13 and closed his evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. 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 buffalo died on 03.11.2013 does not match with the particulars of buffalo insured with the company. In this regard we have observed the particulars mentioned in the policy Ex.R1 itself shows that the tag number of buffalo is 100199 and the tag no. and other body features of the dead buffalo mentioned in the PMR Ex.C4 and Valuation Certificate Ex.C2 match with the insured buffalo. Hence from the documents placed on record it is proved that the buffalo having tag No.HLDB14/100199 which was insured with the opposite party for a sum of Rs.50000/- had died. 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.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint is allowed and it is hereby 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. 25.01.2017 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
10.12.2018.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
