BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.              

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 349 of 2021                                                                        

                                                             Date of Institution :    06.12.2021.

                                                          Date of Decision   :    01.06.2023.

Gurpal Singh, aged 25 years son of Sh. Banta Singh, resident of village Kamal, Post Office Pacca Shahidan, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa.

                                ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

...…Opposite party.

            Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before:       SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR …………PRESIDENT                                 

                     MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………………MEMBER.

                   SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA ………… MEMBER

Present:       Sh. Pankaj Singhal, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party.

ORDER

                   The present complaint has been filed by complainant against the opposite party (hereinafter referred as OP) with the averments that complainant was having three buffaloes and one cow which were got insured by him through op vide policy No. 31270047180400000281 for the period 20.02.2019 to 19.02.2020 as per scheme of the Haryana Government. That buffalo of the complainant bearing tag No. 160034889145 died on 22.11.2019 at 2.25 p.m. which was got insured for the amount of Rs.88,000/- and at the time of insurance the doctor also issued health certificate. It is further averred that intimation of the death of buffalo was given by complainant to the op and the Surveyor and Veterinary doctor of the village inspected the dead buffalo and doctor also prepared post mortem report bearing no.27906 dated 23.11.2019 in which the cause of death was shown as heart fail. The complainant also deposited all the relevant documents to the op. It is further averred that op only deposited amount of Rs.66,000/- in the account of complainant as claim amount whereas as per policy the sum insured value of the buffalo was Rs.88,000/- and complainant also informed the concerned department in this regard but to no effect. That op has caused deficiency in service to the complainant and has caused unnecessary harassment and financial loss to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

2.             On notice, op appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, estoppal, no deficiency in service and that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint as neither insurance has been done by op nor claim has been paid by op within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. Insurance has been got done by complainant from New India Assurance Company Faridabad office and claim has also been paid by Faridabad office, which is not party before this Commission and no cause of action arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission and complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it is submitted that amount as per entitlement of complainant has been transferred by New India Assurance Company Faridabad on 29.01.2020 in the HDFC account of complainant and complainant never objected with regard to the amount paid to him. It is further submitted that neither Deputy Director Animal Husbandry department nor new India Assurance Company Faridabad office has been impleaded, joined as party, hence allegations leveled against Faridabad office and Deputy Director Animal Husbandry department are not tenable in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that answering op has no concern and connection with the insurance and payment. However, Faridabad office of New India Assurance Company is/was the relevant party and as per record called therefrom, the amount of Rs.66,000/- has been paid on 29.1.2020 as per entitlement of complainant without any objections, protest from complainant and after receipt of amount 23 months ago, present complaint otherwise is not tenable and is liable to be dismissed and thus prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

3.             The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, certificate of insurance Ex.C2, post mortem report Ex.C3, application for claim amount moved by complainant Ex.C4, statement of account Ex.C5, adhar card Ex.C6 and ration card Ex.C7.

4.             On the other hand, op has tendered affidavit of Sh. R.K. Indora, Sr. Divisional Manager Ex.R1, details of insurance of animal Ex.R2 and insurance policy Ex.R3 and investigation report Ex.R4.

5.              We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.

6.              There is no dispute of the fact that buffalo of the complainant was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. In this regard complainant has also placed on file certificate of insurance as Ex.C2, the perusal of which also reveals that buffalo in question was insured with the said insurance company for the sum insured value of Rs.88,000/- for the period 20.2.2019 to 19.2.2020 vide tag No. 160034889145. It is also an admitted fact that during the period of policy, the said insured buffalo of the complainant died on 22.11.2019 and post mortem of the deceased buffalo was conducted by Veterinary Surgeon, Govt. Vety. Hospital, Pacca Shahidan (Sirsa) and copy of post mortem report is placed on file by complainant as Ex.C3 in which the cause of death of buffalo is mentioned as due to congestive heart failure. The plea of op that insurance of buffalo was got done by complainant from their Faridabad office has no substance because complainant is resident of village Pacca Shahidan District Sirsa and it is not possible and believable at all that complainant will get insurance of his buffalo from such a far distance i.e. from Faridabad office and possibility that office of Sirsa of op got issued the policy from its Faridabad office cannot be ruled out and as such complainant cannot be said at fault in this regard. It may also be possible that intermediary / agent of the op got issued the policy from Faridabad office. When the op can get issued the policy from Faridabad office then op can also get the claim sanctioned either from Faridabad office or from Sirsa and so now the objection taken by op that this Commission has no jurisdiction is repelled.

7.              The buffalo of the complainant was insured by the op for the amount of Rs.88,000/- but against the claim only amount of Rs.66,000/- has been paid to the complainant. In this regard, op has averred that claim amount of Rs.66,000/- has been paid to the complainant as per his entitlement and during the course of arguments learned counsel has contended that 75% of the insured amount of buffalo was paid to him as per terms and conditions of the policy as the buffalo was three months pregnant at the time of death. But however, the insurance company has wrongly deducted 25% of the insured value of the buffalo on the said ground that buffalo was three months pregnant at the time of death. Since death of buffalo was due to heart failure, therefore, insurance company has wrongly deducted 25% of the insured value of buffalo which is unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of insurance company. Moreover, no terms and conditions of the policy were ever supplied to the complainant alongwith certificate of insurance. Since, buffalo of complainant was insured for an amount of Rs.88,000/-, therefore deduction of the amount of Rs.22,000/- being 25% of the insured value of buffalo is not sustainable, legal and correct. Therefore, op being the branch office of New India Assurance Company Ltd. is liable to pay the remaining amount of Rs.22,000/- to the complainant and at the most op can claim the said amount from its head office and complainant being a simple villager who is not at fault in this regard cannot be allowed to suffer in this regard and his genuine claim cannot be denied at this stage on mere technicalities that policy was issued from Faridabad office. Moreover, op has not proved through any cogent and convincing evidence that claim amount of Rs.66,000/- was paid to the complainant by Faridabad office and not by Sirsa office.  

8.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party to make payment of remaining claim amount of Rs.22,000/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be entitled to the amount of Rs.22,000/- alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. We also direct the op to further pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced:                             Member      Member                President,

Dated: 01.06.2023.                                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                    Redressal Commission, Sirsa.

JK