Haryana

Ambala

CC/231/2021

Balkesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Santosh Kumar

09 Jan 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	231 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	04.08.2021
Date of decision	:	09.01.2024

 

Balesh Kumar, S/o Sh. Chaman Singh, R/o H.No.243, Khudda Kalan, Tehsil Ambala Cantt. Distt. Ambala (Haryana).

……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. New India Assurance Co. Ltd: at Nicholson Road, Punjabi Mohalla, Sadar Bazar, Ambala Cantt., Through its Branch Manager/authorized Signatory.
2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Head Office 87, M.G. Road, Fort Mumbai-400001, through its Managing Director/ Authorized signatory.

 

….…. Opposite parties .

 Before:       Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:      Shri Gopal, Advocate, counsel for the complainant

                   Shri Nikhilesh Bhagi, Advocate, counsel for OPs.

                  

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.66,000/- i.e. sum assured amount of the buffalo with interest @ 18% p.a. with cost.
2. To pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment.
3. To pay Rs.11000/- 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 has been running dairy farming business at Village Khudda Kalan, Ambala. He purchased a cattle insurance policy from the OPs i.e. Policy No.31270047202700032104 dated 18.08.2020 for his cattle i.e. one cow and two buffaloes, valid from 18.08.2020 to 17.08.2021 for assured sum of Rs.1,97,000/- after paying the premium of Rs.2935/- to authorized broker i.e. Hindustan Insurance Brokers Ltd. (DM2460074) Hindustan Broker_312700 (S100147570) NH-5/R-2 NR Badshan Khan Chowk, NIT, Faridabad Haryana, of the OPs. The name of the complainant was written as Balega Kumar son of Chaman Singh instead of Balesh Kumar son of Chaman Singh in policy bond due to typographic mistake on the part of the OPs. The said cattles were purchased by the complainant after taking loan from New India Bank, Branch Khuda Kalan, Ambala for which agreement of hypothecation was also executed between the said bank and the complainant. During coverage of assurance policy, one of the cattle of the complainant i.e. buffalo bearing Tag No. 160040947991 with sum assured of Rs.66,000/- died on 16.09.2020. On the same day i.e. 16.09.2020  information of the death of the said cattle was given to the authorized representative of the OPs by the complainant. On 16.09.2020, the veterinary doctor conducted postmortem of the said buffalo. Thereafter the complainant lodged a claim with the OPs to the tune of Rs.66,000/- and completed all the formalities for releasing claim amount but to no avail. The complainant sent a legal/demand notice dated 22.06.2021 to the OPs through his Advocate, but the OPs failed to send any reply to the same with an ulterior motive till date, which act  amounts to unfair trade practice.  Hence this complaint.  
3.           Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written version wherein various objections were taken to the effect that the complaint of the complainant is not legally maintainable in the present form; the complainant is not a consumer; the complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint; this Commission has no jurisdiction to decide this complaint; the present complaint has been filed by concealing true and material facts; the complainant has approached this Hon'ble Commission with unclean hands; this complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties etc. On merits, it has been stated that during investigation of the claim after receiving information regarding death of the buffalo, the Ear Tag No.160040947991 of the deceased buffalo was found broken/tempered and also it was found that on the ear of the dead buffalo, the tag was tagged on her right ear, whereas, from the photographs of the alive buffalo, it is clearly evident that she had been ear-tagged on left ear and as such the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the OPs. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with special costs.
4.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure C-W1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-9 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. Learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit of Raj Kumar Mittal, Senior Divisional Manager of the OPs Company-The New India Assurance Company Ltd., as Annexure OP-1/A alongwith documents as Annexure OP-1 to OP-22 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OPs.    
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the OPs and have also carefully gone through the case file and also gone through the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the OPs.
6.           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. 
7.           On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs submitted that since the ear tag of the insured cattle was found broken and at the same time it was also found tempered  because from her dead body (photographs Annexure OP-4 to Annexure OP-17) it is evident that she has been ear-tagged on right ear, whereas, on the other hand, from the photographs of the alive buffalo, Annexure OP-19 to Annexure OP-22 it is clearly evident that she had been ear-tagged on left ear. He further submitted that as such the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the OPs. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the OPs has placed reliance on the order dated 16.01.2020, passed by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula, in the case of Baljeet Vs. Oriental Insurance Company.
8.           It is not in dispute that the complainant has got his three cattles insured from the OPs under Policy bearing No.31270047202700032104 dated 18.08.2020 (one cow and two buffaloes), valid from 18.08.2020 to 17.08.2021 for assured sum of Rs.1,97,000/- after paying the premium of Rs.2935/-. In this complaint, the complainant is claiming insured amount qua the buffalo bearing Ear Tag No. 160040947991. 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 it is clearly coming out from the photographs, Annexure OP-4 to Annexure OP-17 placed on record by the OPs, of the dead buffalo that she has been ear-tagged on right ear, whereas, on the other hand, from the photographs of the alive insured buffalo, Annexure OP-19 to Annexure OP-22 it is clearly evident that she had been ear-tagged on left ear. A specific plea has been taken by the OPs in their written version and also it was argued by learned counsel for the OPs that the said tag has been tempered as it was found damaged and also its location was found to be on different ear, and therefore the claim of the complainant was rightly rejected by the OPs. In our considered opinion once such a specific plea has been taken by the OPs and at the same time, they have placed on record the photographs above-said to prove their plea, then it was for the complainant to prove to the contrary by placing on record some cogent evidence but he has failed to do so and on the other hand preferred to maintain silence. Under these circumstances, an adverse inference can easily be drawn that the complainant has nothing to say in his defence to the plea raised by the OPs and can also be presumed that the buffalo which has died for which claim had been raised by the complainant was not the insured buffalo for which the policy in question was taken by the complainant from the OPs. In the case of Baljeet Vs. Oriental Insurance Company (Supra), the Hon’ble SCDRC, Haryana, Panchkula, while dismissing the appeal in limine has held that since the tag was not inserted in the right ear of the buffalo, the respondent has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.
9.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that because the complainant has failed to prove his case, therefore, no relief can be granted 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:- 09.01.2024

 

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