Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/226/2014

Kewal Krishan S/o Ishwar Dass - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

G.C.Verma

27 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                                Complaint No. 226  of 2014.

                                                                                                Date of institution: 14.05.2014

                                                                                                Date of decision:  27.12.2016

Kewal Kirshan aged about 20 years son of Shri Ishwar Dass, resident of village Ratauli, PO Khera, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                 

                                                                                                                                             …Complainant.

                                                Versus                                                

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office, New Fountain Chowk, Workshop, Yamuna Nagar, through its Branch Manager.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

                                                                                                                                             …Respondent. 

BEFORE:           SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                            SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER

Present: Sh. G.C.Verma, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

               Sh. V.K.Sharma, Advocate, counsel for respondent.  

 

ORDER

1.                     Complainant Kewal Krishan has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that the respondent (hereinafter referred as OP) be directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- as insured amount on account of death of buffalo alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts of the present case as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant had purchased two buffalos with the financial assistance from Punjab National Bank, Branch New Grain Market, Jagadhri and at the time of purchase of these buffalos, these cattles were got insured by the said bank from OP vide cover note No. 420911181662, policy No. 420402/4710/9400000247 valid w.e.f. 10.09.2010 to 09.09.2013 against loss of insured cattles covering the risk of theft and death or any other loss of the cattles to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. Unfortunately, on 09.09.2013 at about 10.00 P.M., one of the said insured buffalos bearing tattoo No. NIC/00519 was found dead by the complainant. The complainant next morning intimated the OP as well as bank, on which information surveyor of the OP came and he verified the death of above described buffalo and took photographs. Thereafter, the postmortem of said buffalo was conducted by the Veterinary Surgeon, Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Chandpur, Yamuna Nagar on 12.09.2013 who reported the cause of death as hemorrhage in intestines. The complainant completed all the formalities and submitted the requisite documents with the OP for grant of claim but the OP repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 19.03.2014 on the ground that cattle did not die within the policy period and that the description of the animal differs from the insured animal and no claim is payable to the claimant. The version of the OP made in impugned letter dated 19.03.2014 is totally wrong and illegal, because the buffalo of the complainant had died on 09.09.2013 at 10.00 P.M. which was well within the policy period and he has suffered great loss which is duly covered under the terms of the policy. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP Insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; the buffalo of the complainant was insured with the OP Company w.e.f. 10.09.2010 to 09.09.2013 as per certified copy of policy Annexure R-1. The buffalo of the complainant died after the policy period. In order to bring the claim of the deceased cattle within the framework of policy period, the complainant falsely managed to communicate false date and time of death as 09.09.2013 at 10.00 P.M. through Punjab National Bank, the bank financing the buffalo, on 09.09.2013 itself which is not practically possible. Had the alleged death took place on 09.09.2013 at 10.00 PM, it was practically not possible for the bank to intimate the OP Company on 09.09.2013 itself, which clearly shows collusion between the complainant and bank in order to cheat the OP Company. The letter dated 09.09.2013 of the Punjab National Bank, which however was received by OP Company on 11.09.2013 Annexure R-2, is prima facie fake, manipulated and forged document. It is needful to mention that the letter of the complainant Annexure R-3 was also received in the office of OP Company on 11.09.2013. the Postmortem of the deceased buffalo was conducted on 12.09.2013 as per Annexure R-4. All these facts clearly shows that the said buffalo did not die on 09.09.2013 but after the policy period. As per the latest judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission, “The fraud and justice never dwell together. A party who has not come with clean hands cannot get relief from the consumer Forum, and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.” The description of the cattle of the complainant differs from the insured cattle, as such no claim is payable; complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as Punjab National Bank has not been impleaded as party; there is no deficiency in service or cause of action against the OP Company and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merit, it has been admitted that the buffalo in question is insured for a sum of Rs. 24,500/- only and controverted the plea taken in the complaint and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A and documents such as photo copy of postmortem report as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of Bank’s Advance Certificate as Annexure C-2,  Photo copy of death verification by Bank as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of identification certificate of buffalo issued by PNB Bank as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of valuation certificate issued by Veterinary Surgeon as Annexure C-5, Photo copy of claim form as Annexure C-6, Photo copy of livestock claim form as Annexure C-7, Photo copy of claim repudiation letter as Annexure C-8, Photo copy of intimation letter given to PNB as Annexure C-9 and closed his evidence.  

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP Insurance Company tendered into evidence affidavit of Gurnam Singh, Administrative Officer, NIC as Annexure RW/A and affidavit of Sh. Rajiv Sahni Surveyor as Annexure RW/B and documents such as certified copy of insurance policy as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of intimation letter given to Bank as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of intimation letter dated 09.09.2013 given to Insurance Company as Annexure R-3, Photo copy of letter dated 09.12.2013 as Annexure R-4, Photo copy of postmortem report as Annexure R-5, Photo copy of valuation certificate as Annexure R-6, Photo copy of surveyor report as Annexure R-7 and photo copy of claim repudiation letter dated 19.03.2014 as Annexure R-8 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP Insurance Company.

6.                         We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents carefully and minutely placed on the file. Counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for OP insurance company reiterated the averments made in reply and prayed for its dismissal.

 

7.                     It is admitted fact that the deceased buffalo of the complainant bearing Tag No. NIC/00519 was insured with the OP Insurance Company vide its cover note No. 420911181662 policy No. 420402/4710/9400000247 valid w.e.f. 10.09.2010 to 09.09.2013 which is evident from Annexure R-1 for a sum of Rs. 24,500/-. It is also not disputed that the buffalo bearing tag No. NIC/00519 died which is evident from copy of surveyor report as well as postmortem report Annexure R-7 and R-5 and claim was lodged with the OP Insurance Company.

8.                     The only plea of the OP Insurance Company is that as per intimation received by the OP Insurance Company from the Punjab National Bank Annexure R-3 and R-4, the cattle/buffalo in question died on 09.09.2013 at 10.00 P.M. (night) then how the complainant can intimate to the Punjab National Bank in night and further the said Punjab National Bank intimate to the OP Insurance Company in the night itself on 09.09.2013 mentioning the fact that the cattle of the complainant died on 09.09.2013 i.e. on the same day which is not practically possible. Learned counsel for the OP Insurance Company further argued at length that if we presume for the sake of argument that the buffalo in question died on 09.09.2013 at 10.00 P.M. then also why the complainant kept mum for whole of the day i.e. on 10.09.2013. Learned counsel for the OP Insurance Company further argued that even the postmortem of the dead buffalo was conducted on 12.09.2013 i.e. after 3 days from the death. Learned counsel for the Op Insurance Company draw our attention towards the intimation letter Annexure R-2 and argued that complainant intimated to the Punjab National Bank on 11.09.2013 and on the same day the said Punjab National Bank intimated to the Op Insurance Company on 11.09.2013. Meaning thereby that the alleged buffalo of the complainant died either on 10.09.2013 or in the night/morning of 10.09.2013 and the Punjab National Bank could not renew the insurance policy in question in time as the same had already been expired in the mid night of 09.09.2013. Hence, to save the skin the official of the Punjab National Bank manipulated the date of intimation mentioning as 09.09.2013 in the letter Annexure R-3 without applying the mind that how the complainant can intimate to the Bank in the night on 09.09.2013. Lastly, learned counsel for the OP Insurance Company argued that in fact insurance policy expired in the mid night of 09.09.2013 and the buffalo of the complainant died after that i.e. either on 10.09.2013 or mid night/morning on 11.09.2013 but the complainant in collusion with the official of the Punjab National Bank has manipulated the false story that his buffalo died on 09.09.2013 at 10.00 P.M. which is 2 hours prior to the expiry of insurance policy in question and requested for dismissal of complaint.

9.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant argued at length that case of the complainant is duly proved from the copy of PMR Annexure C-1 and R-5 wherein the identification of the dead buffalo by way of tag is duly proved because at the time of conducting the postmortem veterinary surgeon found the same ear tag duly tagged in the ear of the dead buffalo. Learned counsel for the complainant further draw our attentions towards the report of investigator and argued that the investigator has also admitted this fact in his report Annexure R-7 that dead buffalo was tagged properly at the time of death. Lastly, prayed for acceptance of complaint.

10.                   After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that the arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainant is not tenable as the counsel for the complainant as well as complainant has failed to disclose that why the postmortem of the dead buffalo was not conducted on 10.09.2013 or 11.09.2013 and the OP Insurance Company as well as Punjab National Bank was not informed on 10.09.2013. From the perusal of intimation letter Annexure R-2, it is duly evident that OP Insurance Company was intimated on 11.09.2013 and on the same day the Op Insurance Company deputed the investigator who submitted his report dated 27.12.2013 (Annexure R-7) in which he has stated that he received the instructions from the OP Insurance Company on dated 11.09.2013.We have also perused the intimation letter written by the complainant Annexure C-9 but this letter does not bear any date, it seems that complainant knowingly and intentionally has not mentioned the date on this letter given to the Punjab National Bank.

                        Overall after hearing both the counsels at length and going through the documents placed on file, we are of the considered view that the alleged buffalo of the complainant might have died after the expiry of insurance policy in the mid night of 09.09.2013 but the complainant is trying to get the claim from the Op Insurance Company in collusion with the official of the OP Bank. As the complainant has totally failed to explain, as to why he could not intimate to the OP Insurance Company on 10.09.2013 and further could not get the postmortem of the dead buffalo conducted on 10.09.2013 and on 11.09.2013, if his insured buffalo died on 09.09.2013 at 10.00 P.M. which creates doubt as the policy in question had expired in the mid night of 09.09.2013. Further the complainant has not placed on file any cogent evidence that his alleged buffalo in fact died at 10.00 P.M. on 09.09.2013 as neither any treatment record nor any independent evidence has been placed on file to prove the same because normally, documents do not speak lie but man may do so.

11.                   In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated by the OP Insurance Company vide its letter dated 19.03.2014 (Annexure R-8) and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP Insurance Company and we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint.

12.                   Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 27.12.2016.                                                                                                                                                                                  

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

                                                                                           DCDRF, YAMUNANAGAR.

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.