Haryana

Ambala

CC/198/2022

Jarnail Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

12 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	198 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	13.06.2022
Date of decision	:	12.03.2024

Jarnail Singh S/o Sh. Chatan Singh R/o village Banoundi, Tehsil Naraingarh, Distt Ambala.   

……. Complainant

                                                Versus

1. New India Assurance Company Ltd. Divisional office-312700, NH-5/R-2, Bad shah Khan Chowk, Faridabad -12001 Haryana, through its Branch Manager.
2. New India Assurance Company Ltd. Head office 87 MG Road, fort, Mumbai- 400001, Maharastra through its Branch Manager.
3. Veterinary Surgeon GVH, Shahzadpur, Naraingarh, Ambala

                                                                                   ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Shri Ankush Gupta, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                       Shri Jitender Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1 and 2

                    OP No.3 already given up vide order dated 20.06.2022.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                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 the insured declared value of the buffalo i.e.  Rs.76,000/-  alongwith interest @ 18% per annum;
2.           To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and  physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.11,000/-, as litigation expenses.

 

2.           Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had four Buffalos for domestic milk purpose. In the month August 2020, OP No.3 visited the house of the complainant and explained about the Government Policy with regard to the insurance policy for his buffalos. On such assurance, the complainant got insured his buffalos with the OP No.1 through OP No.2 valid for the period from 16-08-2020 to 16-08-2021 vide Policy No.221438 and separate tag bearing no. 160010530472, 160010530412, 160010530463 and 160010530430 were also given to identify the buffalos. On 26-09-2020 one of the buffalo of the complainant of bearing Tag No.160010530463 fell ill and the complainant have got all treatment of his buffalo done from OP No.3. During treatment on 07-10-2020 the said buffalo of the complainant died. On the same day, intimation regarding the death of the buffalo was given by the complainant to the OPs. Postmortem was also conducted by OP No.3 of the dead buffalo and the complainant applied for insurance claim and LIVESTOCK CLAIM FORM along with necessary documents, after getting the same filled by OP No.3. All these documents were sent alongwith letter dated 28-10-2020 to OP No.1. However, OP No.1 intentionally delayed the insurance claim amount despite the fact that the documents were sent twice to it. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OPs No.1 and 2 appeared and filed written version wherein they raised preliminary objections to the effect that the present complaint is not maintainable; the present complaint is false, frivolous, malicious, vexatious and engineered being made with sole aim, to make fortune out of misfortune; no cause of action has arisen to the complainant for filing this complaint; the complainant has not come with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts etc. On merits, it has been stated that Tag number of buffalo which was insured with the OP No.1 is not mentioned in the PMR of buffalo and it is clear that the post mortem was conducted of some other Buffalo and not the Buffalo which was insured with OP No.1. Four buffalos of the complainant were insured with OP No.1 at Faridabad and Tag numbers were given to the Buffalos and the same were tagged on the ears of each buffalos. OP No.1 had no knowledge regarding any OP No.3.  It is incorrect that the buffalo of the complainant bearing Tag number 160010530463 was ill or that the complainant got treatment of his Buffalo from OP No.3.  The claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated vide letter dated 25.7.2021. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
4.           Vide order dated 20.06.2022, on the basis of the statement of the complainant, the OP No.3 was given up, from the arrays of the parties mentioned in the head note of the complaint. 
5.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-11 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2 tendered affidavit of Raj Kumar Mittal, Manager of OPs No.1 and 2 Company-The New India Assurance Company Limited, Karnal Suit HUB 356002, Gagan Building, G.T.Road, Karnal as Annexure RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 & R-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.1 and 2.
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 and have carefully gone through the case file and also gone through the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2.
7.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that despite the fact that the said buffalo died during the subsistence of the policy in question and the OPs No.1 and 2 were informed about the same and were also provided all the necessary documents, yet they failed to pay the insured declared value of the said buffalo to the complainant, which act amounts to deficiency in providing service, on the part of OPs No.1 and 2.
8.           On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2 submitted that because the complainant has failed to place on record any cogent document to establish that the insured buffalo bearing tag no.160010/530612 had died and also at the same time even in the post mortem report dated 07.10.2020, Annexure C-9 column meant for identification No/Mark has been left blank and tag number is not found mentioned as such in no manner it can be said that the insured buffalo had died. He further submitted that under above circumstances, the claim was not payable by OPs No.1 and 2 to the complainant and was rightly rejected.
9.           The moot question which arises in this case is as to whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief in this case or not. It may be stated here that the alleged insured buffalo died on 07.10.2020. The plea of the complainant is that intimation regarding the same was given to the OPs No.1 and 2 on the same very day, whereas, the stand of the OPs No.1 and 2 is that they for the first time were informed about the same by the complainant, vide letter dated 28.10.2020, Annexure C-1. No document has been placed on record by the complainant to prove that he informed the insurance company about the death of the buffalo, on the same day. As such, we have no reason to disbelieve the contention of the OPs No.1 and 2 that complainant informed them for the first time regarding the death of the buffalo on 28.10.2020, Annexure C-1. This delay has deprived the OPs No.1 and 2 the opportunity to verify if the buffalo which had died was the same which was insured by them under tag No.160010530463. From the perusal of letter dated 25.07.2021, Annexure R-1, it is revealed that the OPs No.1 and 2 rejected the claim on the ground that in the post mortem report, the tag/chip no. of the dead buffalo is not mentioned. 
10.           The Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab in Amit Kumar Versus National Insurance Company Limited, FA No.1851 of 2010 decided on 08.12.2010 dismissed the consumer complaint while holding that because neither there was any chip/tag no. mentioned in the postmortem report of dead animal nor the owner of the same has informed about her death in time, the insurance company has rightly rejected the claim as there was no evidence to hold that if the dead cow in the insured one. As stated above, in the present case also in the post mortem report dated 07.10.2020, Annexure C-9/R-2, the tag/chip no. of the dead buffalo has not been mentioned
11.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, 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:- 12.03.2024.

 

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