Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 239.
Instituted on : 01.08.2013.
Decided on : 23.07.2015.
Ravinder son of Umed Singh resident of village Bohar Tehsil and Distt. Rothak.
………..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.
Present: Sh.Balwan Saroha, 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.42060047119400000478 and sum assured was Rs.30000/-. It is averred that during the period of said policy the buffalo of complainant had died on 03.09.2012 and P.M.R. was got conducted by the Veterinary doctor on 04.09.2012. 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 Ex.16.10.2012 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.30000/- 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 on 04.09.2012, the opposite party deputed Kailash Kumar Investigator to investigate the matter but the alleged dead buffalo could not be got physically checked by the complainant. The carcass of the dead buffalo was not produced for inspection. The claim of the complainant has been legally and rightly repudiated by the opposite party and intimation of the same was given to the complainant vide registered letter dated 16.10.2012. It is averred that the claim of the complainant has been legally and rightly repudiated. 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.C1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A & documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 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.R2 and the tag no. of the buffalo is 054891. 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.C1 on the ground that: “As per report of Investigator this case is not genuine as the dead buffalo could not be checked due to late intimation and non-cooperation of the insured. The carcass of the dead buffalo was not produced for inspection. The insured buried the buffalo before surveyor & inspection within two hours after giving intimation to the insurance company”.
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 carcass of the dead buffalo was not produced for inspection to the surveyor. In this regard it is observed that the dead buffalo was duly verified by the Veterinary Surgeon who after thorough examination of the buffalo had given the Post mortem report. As per PMR Ex.C2 and Valuation certificate Ex.C8, the buffalo having tag no.NIC/054891 had died which was insured with the opposite party. 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.30000/-(Rupees thirty thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 01.08.2013 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:
23.07.2015.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
