Haryana

Karnal

330/13

Kashmir singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Surjit Narwal

06 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                          Complaint No.330 of 2013                                                                                               Date of instt.: 26.07.2013

                                                          Date of decision:18.12.2015

 

Kashmir Singh son of Sh.Satnam Singh resident of Dera  Satnam Singh Chhinna, Gyujrakhian Road, Assandh district Karnal.

                                                                ……..Complainant.

                   Vs.

National Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office, Railway Road, Karnal.

                                                                  …..Opposite Party.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

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

                   Smt. Shashi Sharma……….Member.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-        Sh.S.S.Narwal Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Vineet Rathore Advocate for the Opposite party.

ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that he purchased policy from the Opposite Party for insurance of two buffaloes  for Rs.50000/-each.   The  officials of the Opposite Party made physical verification of the buffaloes before insurance and after getting premium of Rs.2130/-  policy No. 940000004772 valid from 28.9.2012  to 27.9.2013 was issued. The Opposite Party further issued  tags No Chola-MS-C-91692 and CHOLA-MS-C-91673 for the insured buffaloes.  On 10.11.2012 insured buffalo bearing tag No. Chola-MS-C-91692 fell ill due to chronic  Pneumonia   The complainant gave information to the Opposite Party and  got the buffalo treated from the Veterinary Surgeon, Government Veterinary Hospital, Assandh, but the buffalo died. Post mortem on the dead body of the buffalo was conducted by the Veterinary Surgeon. Intimation was also given to the Opposite Party regarding death of the buffalo. The officials of the Opposite Party visited the village and obtained photographs of the dead buffalo and all the relevant documents. However, the  Opposite Party repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 12.6.2013 deliberately,  which amounted to deficiency in services and on that account he suffered mental agony and pain apart from financial loss.

 

2.                 Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Party, who put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant on various grounds. Objections have been raised that complaint is not maintainable; that the complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis joinder of the parties; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; that the complainant has suppressed the material facts and that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint as intricate issues are involved.

 

                   On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant got insured his buffalo for a sum of Rs.50,000/-  for the period of 28.9.2012  to 27.9.2013 and tag No. Chola-MS-C-91692 was issued. It has been submitted that health certificate was  issued regarding the insured buffalo.  The information regarding death  was given at belated stage and after getting information Opposite Party deputed the surveyor, who visited the spot and took photographs and recorded the statement of the complainant. The description of the insured female buffalo  mentioned in the health certificate did not tally with the buffalo, which was found dead by the investigator and it appeared that tag was affixed in the ear of the buffalo after the same had fallen sick. There was one more buffalo of the complainant and the description of the insured buffalo  related to the alive buffalo. The Opposite Party issued various letters to the complainant calling upon him to explain and substantiate his claim by depositing  relevant documents, but he failed to submit the same, therefore, his claim was rightly repudiated as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In this way, there was no deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite Party. The other allegations made in the complainant have been denied.

 

3.                 In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.PW1/A and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 have been tendered.

 

4.                 On the other hand, in evidence of the Opposite Party, affidavit of Sh.R.K.Goswami, Assistant Manager, Ex.OW1/A and documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP10 have been tendered.

 

 

5.                 We have appraised the evidence on record,  the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

 

6.                 The parties are not in dispute that the complainant got insured two buffaloes with the Opposite Party for Rs.50,000/- each for the period of 28.9.2012  to 27.9.2013. As per the case of the complainant,, the buffalo bearing tag No. Chola-MS-C-91692 died on 10.11.2012. The claim of the complainant was repudiated by the Opposite Party on the ground that description of the dead buffalo as per verification at the spot by the investigator did not tally with the description  of the  buffalo mentioned in the health certificate  issued at the time of insurance.  Thus, the material question which arises for consideration is whether the insured buffalo of the complainant had died or some other buffalo had died.

 

7.                 The copy of the health certificate Ex.OP9 shows that insured buffalo of the complainant was of  Nile Ravi breed , same was of black colour, aged about six and half years  and having third lactation, semi curved Horns and tail below hock joint with one foot white switch. The copy of the post mortem report Ex.OP6 indicates that deceased buffalo was of Nile Ravi breed, third lactation, Horns curved and tail below hock joint one feet white switch. Thus, it is emphatically clear that identification marks of the insured buffalo mentioned in the health certificate  tallied  with the identification marks mentioned in the post mortem report  by the Veterinary Surgeon, who conducted the post mortem.

 

8.                 According to the report of investigator of the Opposite Party Ex.OP8, instead of semi curved horns he  found that deceased buffalo was having completely curved horns and that the tail  was middle sized, whereas in the health certificate tail was  upto hock joint. It appears that such variations could be on account of observations of the investigator, because there is no  mark difference between semi curved and completely curved horns and the size of the tail. The complainant may be having another buffalo of the same breed, but that does not  lead to the conclusion that insured buffalo was alive.  Had that buffalo been alive, the tag  should have been  in the ear of that buffalo or there should  be some mark of removing the tag, but there is no such mention in the report of the investigator that the  tag was removed from the ear of the alive buffalo and then fixed in   ear of  dead buffalo. In the post mortem report, the doctor mentioned the tag as Chola-MS-C-91692 i.e. of the insured buffalo found at the time of post mortem. Under such circumstances, the report of the investigator that description of the dead buffalo did not correlate with the insured buffalo cannot be accepted. Consequently, repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the Opposite Party was not legal and justified and the same amounted to deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite Party.

 

9.                 As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Opposite Party to make the payment of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e.26.7.2013 till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.5500/- for the mental harassment and agony   caused to him and for the litigation expenses. The Opposite Party  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: 18.12.2015

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

(Anil Sharma )       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member.

 

 

 

 

 

Kashmir Singh Vs. NIC.

 

 

Present:-        Sh.S.S.Narwal Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Vineet Rathore Advocate for the Opposite party.

 

                   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: 18.12.2015

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

(Anil Sharma )       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member.