BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                                      Complaint No.:04 of 2013.

                                                                      Date of Institution: 19.02.2013.

                                                                      Date of Decision:.10.2015

Sushil Kumar son of Uday Singh, resident of village Siwara, Tehsil Bawani Kheram, District Bhiwani.

                                                                                ….Complainant.

                                        Versus

1. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Rohtak through its branch Manager, bearing Policy No. 358000/09/01/010000291 dated 21.10.2009.
2. Manager, Haryana Kshetrya Gramin Bank, Bawani Khera, Tehsil Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani.

                                                                 …...Opposite Parties. 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT.

BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President

                   Shri Balraj Singh, Member

         Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member

Present:- Shri Krishan Goyat, Advocate, for complainant.

     Shri A. Sardana, Advocate for OP no. 1.

     Shri P.K. Punia, Advocate for OP no. 2.

ORDER:-

Rajesh Jindal, President:

                    The case of the complainant in brief, is that the complainant had taken a loan from OP no. 2 and purchased a buffalo.  The complainant alleged that the OP no. 2 got insured the buffalo from OP no. 1 from 20.10.2009 to 19.10.2012 vide policy no. 35380/47/09/010000291.  On 26.08.2012 at about 7.30 a.m. buffalo was died due to disease and informed about the death of buffalo to Vaternary Surgeon Bawani Khera and Post Mortem bearing no. 30405 dated 26.08.2012 was conducted by the concerned Veterinary Surgeon and also taken the snaps of his died buffalo.  The complainant alleged that he informed the employees of OP no. 1 and officials of OP no. 1 gave report on the assurance that his claim would be passed.  The complainant approached OP no. 1 many times and requested them to pass the claim but they refused to do the same.  The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such he had to file the present complaint.

2.                 On appearance, the OP no. 1 filed written statement alleging therein that the answering respondent deputed Dr. H.R. Mittal, Retire Deputy Director an independent Investigator for investigations into the death of the buffalo of the complainant and after investigation it was found that the dead buffalo belonged to Nihal Singh not to Sushil Kumar.  It is submitted that the complainant was freshly tagged to the dead buffalo of Nihal Singh as per planning of one Krishan Kumar.  Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no. 1 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                 OP No. 2 on appearance also filed separate written statement alleging therein that there has been no role of any kind for settlement of the claim allegedly lodged by the complainant with the OP no. 1 in respect of alleged death of the insured buffalo.  Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no. 2 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4.                In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-8 alongwith supporting affidavit.

4.                In reply thereto, the opposite parties placed on record Annexure R1/1 to Annexure R1/6.

5.                 We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

7.                 Learned counsel for the OP stated that the claim of the complainant has been settled and the opposite party have paid the claim of Rs. 8,98,500/- to the complainant vide cheque dated 16.05.2013  and no amount is payable to the complainant. 

8.                Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that there is delay in the payment of the claim by the opposite party to the complainant.  Hence, the opposite party are liable to pay the interest for the delayed payment of claim.

9.                 In view of the submissions of the counsel for the parties, we examined the material on record.  The counsel for the opposite party submitted that the claim amount of Rs. 8,98,500/- has been received by the complainant without raising any protest and now the complainant is estopped to claim the interest.  Keeping in view the facts of the case as the claim has been received by the complainant without protest as full and final settlement of his claim.  As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of United India Insurance Company Vs. Ajmer Singh Cotton and General Mills and Ors. reported in 1999 (2) CPC 601 (Supreme Court),  the complainant cannot claim for the payment of interest.  Hence, the complaint accordingly stands disposed of being fully satisfied. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 14.10.2015.                            

      (Rajesh Jindal)                             

President,

                                                            District Consumer Disputes

                                                            Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

(Ansuya Bishnoi)            (Balraj Singh)       

     Member                           Member