Haryana

Ambala

CC/43/2022

Balbir Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

New India Assurance Co Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Satinder Pal Saini

07 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	43 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	02.02.2022
Date of decision	:	07.03.2024

Balbir Chand S/o Chohal Ram aged about 48 years Village & PO Ugala, Tehsil Barara, Distt. Ambala

……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. New India Assurance Company Ltd., Circle Head 312700, NH-5/R/2, Badshah Khan Chowk, Faridabad- 121001 through its Authority Signatory.
2. Bank of Broada, Branch Ugala, Distt. Ambala-133205 through its Manager

 

….…. Opposite parties

 Before:      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                     Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:      Shri Satinder Pal Singh, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                   Shri Mohinder Bindal, Advocate, counsel for OP No.1.

                   Shri Anil Singla, Advocate, counsel for OP No.2.

                  

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay Rs.60,000/- i.e. sum assured amount of the dead buffalo alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from 28.05.2021 till realization.
2. To pay Rs.10,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.15,000/- as cost of litigation.
4. Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

 

2.             Brief facts of this case are that the complainant is doing the business of buffalo farming/milk dairy. The complainant moved application in August 2020 for obtaining loan of Rs.1,20,000/- for purchasing buffalos in The Ugala Dudak Utpadak Sahakari Samiti Vita Diary situated in Village Ugala. Resultantly, a server namely Vijay Kumar visited the house of complainant on 01.10.2020 and completed all formalities regarding his loan. He also tagged the two buffalos of complainant vide tag No.160040/824894 and 160040/824303. On that day, the complainant also availed the insurance policy for his two buffalos amounting to Rs.60,000/- each, vide Policy No.354857 from OP No.1 for a period of one year. The necessary formalities were fulfilled by the complainant regarding the insurance of his two buffalos with said Vijay Kumar. The complainant received the loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in installments in his Bank Account No.48080500000611 maintained by him in Bank of Baroda, Branch Ugala. After that the complainant was doing his work of buffalo farming and was regularly paying the installments/premium of his loan. On 25.05.2021 one buffalo of complainant bearing tag No.160040/824303 became ill and treatment was going on through Dr. Rahul Brar till 28.05.2021. On 28.05.2021 the said buffalo died due to illness. After that the complainant contacted Mr. Vijay Kumar through mobile and intimated him regarding the death of his cattle/buffalo. On 28.05.2021 a server from OP No.1 visited the house of the complainant and postmortem of the dead buffalo was conducted by Dr. Rahul Brar. After the postmortem, the complainant approached OP No.1 regarding the claim of his dead buffalo and provided all documents like postmortem report etc. but the OPs failed to pay the claim amount.  Under the compelling circumstances, the complainant issued legal Notice dated 01.12.2021 through his counsel upon the OPs but to no avail.  Hence this complaint.  
3.           Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, not come with clean hands and suppressed the material facts and cause of action etc.  On merits, it has been stated that OP No.1 issued one livestock (cattle) insurance policy bearing number 31270047202700064986 valid from 09.10.2020 to 08.10.2021 in respect of two buffaloes aged 6yrs and 5 yrs with identification tag nos. 160040824894 and 160040824303 respectively against sum insured of Rs.60,000/- each subject to certain terms and conditions. Accordingly identification tag nos. 160040824894 and 160040824303 were inserted in the ear of the insured buffaloes and the insured was specifically informed about the importance of such inserted tag and was also warned at the same time that if any manipulation will be done with the tag in question or it was found missing or changed in nature or place then no claim under the insurance policy will be payable. During the period of said insurance policy, one claim against the alleged death of one of the insured buffalo with tag no.160040824303 was reported and accordingly one Investigator Mr. Rakesh Vashishtha was immediately deputed to visit the insured place and to give his fact finding report in this regard. The said investigator visited the place of insured on the same day and inspected the carcass of said buffalo and had its photographs and also collected all the relevant papers from the insured like claim form, PMR report, ID proofs of insured etc. and also recorded his statement. The Investigator found that the tag in the ear was not intact and was found separated from the ear of the dead animal and only pasted on the ear just to show it. The Investigator after completing the formalities submitted his report dated 15.06.2021 with OP No.1 along with relevant documents as well as the broken tag of the deceased buffalo with the remarks of dead animal doubtful after his detailed investigation and by comparing the photographs of the live and dead animal also. During the scrutiny of the documents and the tag, it was found that the tag provided was not intact at the time of survey and was separated from the ear of their own and was found pasted on the ear against the terms of the policy. Thus as per the policy condition of the insurance policy if any tempering, manipulation or removing the tag from its place is found the claim was not payable and accordingly the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the competent authority under "NO TAG NO CLAIM" policy. The insured was duly informed about the fate of his claim vide letter dated 28.03.2022. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
4.           Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared and filed written version wherein various objections were taken to the effect that the complaint filed by the complainant is false and frivolous and is not even maintainable against the OP No. 2 as the same has been filed without any cause of action; the complaint filed by the complainant is nothing but misuse of process of law; the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of the parties as the OP No.2 has been wrongly arrayed as party in present complaint; the complainant has suppressed true and material facts from this Commission and has not come with clean hands etc. On merits, it has been stated that OP No.2 is a nationalized Bank and is providing services to the entire satisfaction of its customers including the complainant. OP No.2 has granted loan facility to complainant under BAHFKCC loan scheme of the bank to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- and the same has been disbursed to him vide his loan account no. 48080500000611 which is repayable by the complainant as per agreed repayment schedule alongwith agreed interest, cost, charges etc. The complainant got his buffaloes insured from the OP No. 1 directly and the OP No. 2 has played no role in this regard. However as the loan amount is still outstanding against the complainant therefore the sum assured which is to be paid by the OP No.1 is liable to be credited to the loan account of the complainant maintained with the OP No.2, as per law. The complaint related to the death of one buffalo of the complainant is liable to be proved by the complainant and the same is not related to the OP No.2 in any manner. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
5.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant and affidavit of Sishpal son of Nakli Ram, village & PO Ugala, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala as Annexure CA and CB respectively alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-13  and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Raj Kumar Mittal, Authorized Signatory, The New India Assurance Company Ltd., and affidavit of Rakesh Vashishtha, Investigator, resident of 364, Rakesh Bhawan, Behind Puran Market, Ward No.20, Near Gas Agency, Charkhi Dadri, Haryana as Annexure OP-A and OP-B respectively alongwith documents as Annexure OP-1 to OP-12 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OP No.1. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Rajinder Kumar, Senior Manager, Bank of Baroda, Ugala Branch District Ambala as Annexure OP-2/A alongwith documents as Annexure OP-2/1 to OP-2/5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OP No.2.
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.
7.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by not making payment of insured amount in respect of the insured cattle, after her death, the OPs have indulged into unfair trade practice and are also deficient in providing service. 
8.           On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 submitted that during the scrutiny of the documents and the tag, it was found that the tag provided was not intact at the time of survey and was separated from the ear of dead buffalo and was found pasted on her ear against the terms of the policy. He further submitted that as per the policy condition of the insurance policy if any tempering, manipulation or removing the tag from its place is found the claim was not payable and accordingly the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the competent authority under "NO TAG NO CLAIM" policy and insured was duly informed about the fate of his claim vide letter dated 28.03.2022.
9.           Learned counsel for the OP No.2 submitted that the complainant got his buffaloes insured from the OP No.1 directly and the OP No.2 has played no role in this regard. He further submitted that as the loan amount is still outstanding against the complainant therefore, claim amount if any is to be paid by the OP No.1, then the said amount is liable to be credited in the loan account of the complainant maintained with the OP No.2, as per law.  He further submitted that the complaint related to the death of one buffalo of the complainant is liable to be proved by the complainant and the same is not related to the OP No. 2 in any manner.
10.           It is not in dispute that OP No.1 issued one livestock (cattle) insurance policy bearing number 31270047202700064986 valid from 09.10.2020 to 08.10 2021 in respect of two buffaloes aged 6yrs and 5 yrs with identification tag nos.160040824894 and 160040824303 respectively against sum insured of Rs.60,000/- each. The complainant is claiming insured amount qua the buffalo bearing Ear Tag No.160040/824303. Therefore, the moot question which falls for determination is as to whether, the complainant is  entitled to get any relief qua death of the buffalo in question or not. It may be stated here that the investigator in his report dated 15.06.2021, Annexure OP-4 has clearly opined that the tag in the ear of dead buffalo was not intact and was found separated from her ear and only pasted on the ear just to show the same. We have gone through the photographs of the dead buffalo, Annexure OP-7 to OP-12 and found that in the photograph Annexure OP-10, there is cut in the ear of the dead buffalo and ear tag is also missing.  It is significant to mention here that despite the fact that a specific plea has been taken by the OP No.1 in its written version and also it was argued by learned counsel for the OPs that the said tag has been tempered with, as it was found damaged and that the tag in the ear was not intact and was found separated from the ear of the dead animal and only pasted on the ear just to show it, the complainant has failed to controvert the same by placing on record any convincing evidence. In the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence, it cannot be presumed that the buffalo which has died for which claim had been raised by the complainant was insured buffalo for which the policy in question was taken by the complainant from the OPs. In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is held that because the complainant has failed to prove his case, therefore, no relief can be given to him. Resultantly, this complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules.  File be annexed and consigned to the record room.

Announced:- 07.03.2024

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President