Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/64/2013

Paramjeet w/o. Sher Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

P.C .Sharma

14 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                    Complaint No.64 of 2013.

                                                                                    Date of institution:24.1.2013.

                                                                                     Date of decision: 14.9.2017.

 

Paramjeet wife of Sh.Sher Pal, aged 38 years, resident of Rampur Khadar, tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                            …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1.         National Insurance Co. Ltd. Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.

2.         Haryana Gramin Bank Khadri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                                             … Respondent.

 

BEFORE:       SH.SATPAL………….PRESIDENT.

           SH.S.C.SHARMA, ……MEMBER.           

                       SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. P.C.Sharma, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

                Sh. Rajiv Gupta, Advocate, counsel for OP No.1.

    None for Op No.2.

 

ORDER: (SATPAL, PRESIDENT)

                                   

 

1.                     The complainant filed this complaint against the respondents (the respondents hereinafter shall be referred as Ops) Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of present complaint as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant had obtained a Dairy Loan under the group of Ravi Das Self Help Group, Rampur Khadar, Distt. Yamuna Nagar from the Op No.2.  The complainant got insured the buffalos from OP No.1 vide cover note No.420911181705, w.e.f. 22.9.2010 to 21.9.2013 and paid premium of Rs.17,280/-.  The OP No.1 issued Tag No.NIC00590 to the buffalo of the complainant.   Unfortunately, the aforesaid buffalo of the complainant died on 14.2.2012 and the complainant got conducted the post mortem of buffalo from the Veterinary Surgeon in presence of officials of OP No.1.  This fact was duly intimated to the Op No.1 and thereafter the complainant lodged his cattle claim before the Op No.1 on 17.2.2012 along with all the requisite papers.  But, despite repeated requests and lapse of one year the OP No.1 had not settled the claim of the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint by directing the Ops to settle the claim of the complainant positively and be directed to pay the claimed amount to the complainant along with interest @18% p.a. till its payment and further to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment as well as Rs.11000/- as cost of proceedings. 

3.                     Upon notice, the Ops appeared and filed their written statement separately.  While  filing the written statement, the OP No.1 took some preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the Op No.1; no cause of action arose in favour of the complainant against the answering OP.  On merits, the Op No.1 admitted the fact regarding insurance of cattle of the complainant under tag No.NIC00590 and intimation of the death of cattle is matter of record.   It is wrong to allege that the cattle  which was insured with the Op No.1 died on 14.2.2012. on receipt of intimation, regarding death of cattle of the complainant on 14.2.2012, the OP-Insurance company immediately deputed Sh.Sumit Goel an independent investigator/surveyor to conduct an investigation in respect of death of cattle of the complainant and to submit the fact finding report.  Sh.Sumit Goel, visited the house of the complainant on 14.2.2012 itself and the complainant produced the carcass of a buffalo and the said investigator found that the deceased cattle was not wearing the ear tag and one broken tag NO.NIC00590 was in possession of the complainant.  Further the investigator compared the dead cattle’s particulars with the health certificate issued at the time of finance/insurance and it was found by the investigator that the particulars of the deceased cattle does not resemble and matches with the insured cattle.  It was pointed out by the investigator that as per Health Certificate the horns of insured cattle were sickle shaped, whereas the horns of deceased cattle were coiled.  Further pointed out that the deceased cattle was not wearing the ear tag, whereas as per the Health Certificate the Tag number was NIC00590.  On receipt of the investigator report dated 22.2.2012 the claim in question was further processed by the OP-company and it was found that the insured cattle has not died, therefore, the OP-company after taking into account the points raised by the investigator, legally and justifiably repudiated the claim of the complainant vide its registered letter dated 27.2.2012.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP-company and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

4.                     The Op No.2 while filing the written statement admitted the facts of the complaint as matter of record.  There is no lapses on the part of the answering OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with heavy costs.

5.                     To prove the case the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as annexure CW/A, documents such as copy of cover note as annexure C.1, copy of letter dated 17.7.2012 as annexure C.2, copy of live stock claim form as annexure C.3, copy of live stock claim as annexure C.4, copy of post mortem report as annexure C.5, copy of valuation certificate as annexure C.6, copy of death verification by bank as annexure C.7, copy of bank’s advance certificate as annexure C.8 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.

6.                     The counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Parveen Arora, Admn. Officer as annexure RA, affidavit of Shri Sumit Goel, Surveyor and Loss Assessor as annexure R.B and documents such as copy of application dated 14.2.2012 as annexure R.1, copy of surveyor report as annexure R.2, copy of health certificate as annexure R.3, copy of letter dated 27.2.2012 as annexure R.4, copy of policy as annexure R.5 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1.

7.                     The Op No.2 had failed to adduce any evidence despite several opportunities, hence, the evidence of the Op No.2 was closed by court order vide order dated 8.9.2017.

8.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as Op No.1 and gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file. 

9.                     After hearing the counsel for the complainant as well as Op No.1, it is clear that one buffalo of the complainant was insured with the Op No.1 and samedied on 14.2.2012 for which the intimation was given the Ops and the post mortem of the deceased buffalo was done by the Veterinary Surgeon in presence of the complainant and officials of the Insurance company.  The only point of controversy between the parties is whether the deceased cattle was the same as was insured by the OP No.1 or not?   OP No.1 has contended that the buffalo of which post mortem was conducted was not the same which was insured by them on the ground that the deceased cattle of which post mortem was conducted did not bear the ear tag at the time of post mortem and that the horn of the deceased cattle were of coiled type as per report of the investigator whereas insured beffalo had the horns of sickle shape.  The above contentions of the Op No.1 have been found incorrect and false on the ground that Veterinary Surgeon vide post mortem report dated 14.2.2012 (Annexure C.5) has found that the deceased cattle was wearing ear tag and the horns of the deceased cattle were sickle type. In this regard, it would be relevant to mention here that the post mortem report is an important piece of evidence about which there is no occasion for this Forum to raise any kind of doubt.  Further, Veterinary Surgeon who conducted post mortem has independent expert who has given his post mortem report upon whom reliance can safely be placed.  The counsel for the OP No.1 draw the attention of this Forum towards authority reported in 2004(2) CPR P.32 titled as Jagdish Singh vs. New India Assurance Company and others, wherein it has ben so held that, “Section 14 and 17-Insurance-Death of horse-The horse purchased with assistance of bank loan died in accident when it was driving a card loaded with poultry fee-No evidence including ear tag of horse was produced in support of complainant’s claim-Order of District Forum repudiating the claim does not suffer from any error-Appeal dismissed”.  The authority (supra) tendered by the counsel for the Op No.1 is not disputed but not identical to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand as the particulars of the insured buffalo/cattle and the deceased buffalo/cattle are the same as is clear from the health certificate and post mortem, hence, no reliance can be placed on the version of the OP No.1, so, the repudiation of claim by the Op No.1 on the ground that the particulars of the deceased buffalo were not matching with the insured buffalo and cattle was not wearing ear tag is not justified, thus, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Op No.1 for which the complainant is entitled for the relief.

10.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant by directing the Op No.1 to pay the claim of the complainant on account of death of buffalo to the tune of Rs.18,000/- as the cost of the buffalo which has been valued by the Veterinary Surgeon in the valuation certificate as Rs.18,000/-.  The OP No.1 is further directed to pay the amount Rs.18,000/- along with interest @6% p.a. from the date after three months from the date of death of buffalo till its realization and further to pay Rs.3300/- as cost of proceedings.  Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. 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.14.9.2017.      

 

                                                                                                (SATPAL)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT,

 

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)                    (S.C.SHARMA)

MEMBER                                                      MEMBER.