Haryana

Karnal

152/13

Palak - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. S.K. Sharma

15 Jul 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.152 of 2013

                                                          Date of instt. 19.3.2013

                                                          Date of decision: 10.03.2015

 

Palak daughter of Shri Dharampal resident of V PO 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. Vijay Sahni Advocate for the OP No.1.

None for OP no.2.

 

ORDER

                         

                   The complainant has filed the present complainant u/s 12 against the OPs on the allegations  that the complainant purchased a cow with the help of OP no.2 and got the same insured with the OP No.1  for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- vide insurance policy No. 420500/47/11/9400000485  valid from 8.2.2012 7..2.2013.The said cow of the complainant died on 30.07.2012 and the post mortem  upon the dead body of the cow was also conducted at Civil Veterinary Hospital, Kheri Saarafali 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 present complaint was an abuse of the process of law. It was contended that the complainant failed to comply  with the formalities like treatment chart, column no.2 of the form  was blank, column no.6 of the veterinary certificate not replied and that the certificate issued by the Sarpanch was without date. It was also contended that the  complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint.

 

                   On merits, issuance of the cover note and death of the cattle has not been denied by the OP No.1.  It was contended that the claim of the complainant was rightly closed by the answering OP No.1 because the complainant failed to complete the formalities.

                  

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 30.07.2012 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 claim of the complainant was declined vide letter dated 14.1.2013 Ex.OP11. It has also come in evidence that in  the veterinary certificate Ex.P1, value of the cattle has been mentioned as Rs.38000/-  In the live stock claim form Rx.O2 also cost of the cattle has been mentioned as Rs.38000/-.

 

5.                 The argument of the learned counsel for the OP no.1 that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated because the complainant failed to complete the required formalities 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-71265 and the said cattle died and in the post mortem report  Ex.C4 same tag No. NIC-71265 has been mentioned.  In the veterinary certificate ExO.P1, value of the cattle has been mentioned as Rs.38000/-  In the live stock claim form Rx.O2 also cost of the cattle has been mentioned as Rs.38000/. Therefore, non reimbursement 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. Vijay Sahni 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.