Haryana

Jind

CC/15/35

Dalbir - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Pardeep Kumar Batra

21 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 
                                           Complaint No. 33 of 2015
   Date of Institution: 11.3.2015
   Date of final order: 27.7.2016

Dalbir s/o Sh. Basnata r/o village Khatkar District Jind. 

                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, S.C.F.1-2, Rani Talab, Jind. Jind Through its Branch Manager. 

                                                          …..Opposite party.
                          Complaint under section 12 of
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
    Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.    

Present:  Sh. P.K Batra Adv. for complainant.
          Sh. Satish Bhardwaj Adv. for opposite party. 
              
                   
ORDER:

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant had got insured his Murrah buffalo for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with the opposite party vide policy No.420605/47/13/9400000735 valid w.e.f. 30.9.2013 to 29.9.2014.  The buffalo of the complainant physically verified  and issued tag No. HLDB-09/109199. The buffalo of the complainant had died on 01.07.2014 due to illness. Complainant provided treatment of his  buffalo by  Government Veterinary Hospital, Khatkar Jind  w.e.f.7.5.2014 to 1.7.2014 till her death. Post-mortem of buffalo as 
            Dalbir Vs. NIC
                …2…
conducted by Veterinary Surgeon Hospital Khatkar, District Jind vide report No.2017 dated 2.7.2014.  The complainant submitted all the necessary documents to the opposite party. The complainant made a claim with the opposite party well within time. The opposite party  had illegally  repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 24.2.2015 on the grounds that  the ear tag of buffalo was new one and there was also difference in tail of the buffalo, the age of the buffalo and date of death is also found different. The opposite party while issuing the letter of repudiation has ignored the certificate issued by Veterinary Surgeon and Post-mortem report and detailed report dated 11.11.2014 issued by doctor.  Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite party be directed to pay the insured claim amount of Rs.50,000/-,a sum of Rs.40,000/- as  compensation on account of mental pain and agony as well as to pay a sum of  Rs. 7,000/- as litigation expenses  to the complainant. 
2.    Upon notice, the opposite party has appeared and filed the   written statement stating in the preliminary objections i.e. the complainant has no cause of action and locus-standi to file the present complaint and the complaint is not maintainable in the present forum. On merits, it is contended that the  opposite party had deputed surveyor Sh. Sanjay Kumar Jain, an Independent and Govt.  Approved Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Jind who  inspected the dead buffalo of the complainant and submitted his report  that the died buffalo’s tail is sheared but insured buffalo switch of tail is white, the died buffalo 
            Dalbir Vs. NIC
                …3…
age as on death is 6 years but insured buffalo age should be 6¾  years, the died buffalo tag seems to be brand new and skin of ear was quite soft and the insured has total 10 buffaloes and as per insured statement the only two are insured. The Veterinary Surgeon has reported that the buffalo of the complainant had died on 1.7.2014 but later on it has been mentioned that the buffalo was died on 2.7.2014. Ultimately after considering all the facts, the claim of the complainant has been filed as “No Claim” vide letter dated 24.2.2015.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the  opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with costs is prayed for. 
3.    In evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit  Ex. C-1, copy of treatment  card Ex. C-2, copy of Post Mortem Report Ex. C-3 , copy of repudiation letter dated 15.12.2014 Ex. C-4, copy of letter and  copies of letter Ex. C-4 to Ex. C-7 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the opposite party has produced the affidavit of Sh. M.L. Arora, Branch Manager Ex. OP-1, affidavit of Sh. Sanjay Kumar Jain, Surveyor  Ex. OP-2, copies of letter Ex. OP-3 to Ex. OP-7, copy of policy schedule Ex. OP-8 and copy of application dated 2.7.2014 Ex. OP-9 and closed the evidence.
4.    We have heard the Ld. counsel of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file. The counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant had insured his buffalo for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with the opposite party  vide policy No.420605/47/13/9400000735 and the said buffalo  died  due to illness on 1.7.2014 and the post-mortem examination was also carried out by 
            Dalbir Vs. NIC
                …4…
the Veterinary Surgeon on the next day i.e. 2.7.2014 but the opposite party has repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 24.2.2015 as Ex. C-7 on the ground that there were differences in the tail of the buffalo, the age of the buffalo and date of death is also found different as well as the ear tag of the buffalo was seems to new one.  The above said repudiation letter is false and there is no truth in this letter. The counsel for the complainant argued that due to chronic disease  the tail of the buffalo was got docked. The date of the death of buffalo was 1.7.2014 and the post-mortem of the dead buffalo was conducted on 2.7.2014, it is clarified by the Veterinary Surgeon in his letter No.130 dated 11.2.2015 Ex. C-6.  As such there is no discrepancy between the date mentioned in the post-mortem report and the  actual date. It is further argued that during the issuance of the policy the age of the buffalo was written 6 years and at the time of death the same was written by Veterinary Surgeon 6½ years approximate.  Generally the farmers could not kept the record of age of buffalo in the villages they can only assess the age of the animal and on this ground the repudiation of the claim is not legal one.  
5.    On the other hand, the counsel for opposite party  has argued that the claim of the complainant was repudiated rightly upon mis-description and concealment of material information. As per spot 
investigation of surveyor the description of cattle does not match with the cattle insured in the policy. In the investigation report  as per health certificate the tail of the cattle is mentioned  switched of white, however, the dead buffalo tail is sheared.  The age of the dead buffalo 
            Dalbir Vs. NIC
                …5…
is 6 years but the insured buffalo age should be 6¾ years. Besides this the dead buffalo tag seems to be new one. The claim of the complainant is rejected rightly and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 
6.    After hearing the arguments of both the parties we observed that the main objection of the opposite party for repudiating the claim is that the description of the cattle as per spot investigation does not match with the cattle insured in the policy. We have gone through the Post-mortem report Ex. C-3 wherein the description of the insured buffalo  mentioned as breed-Murrah, colour black, horn-curved, tail-docked as well as tag number was shown HLDB-09/109199. Regarding the tail, the version of the complainant is that due to long illness/chronic disease the tail of the insured buffalo had been docked. The version of the complainant is believable because it  is confirmed from the Ex. C-2 treatment record issued by the Veterinary Surgeon as the insured buffalo remained ill for a long time and also remained under the treatment of the Veterinary Surgeon. So in these circumstances, the tail of the insured buffalo can dock. The other objection of the opposite party is that the dead buffalo tag seems to be brand new and skin of ear was quite soft. The objection  taken by the opposite party is not tenable because only to presume that the tag is new one is not permissible under the eyes of law and no expert evidence has been filed by the opposite party that the tag is new one or not.   Regarding the  objection of opposite party description in date of death of  buffalo  1.7.2014 and 2.7.2014 it is clarified by the 
            Dalbir Vs. NIC
                …6…
Veterinary Surgeon  vide his  letter No.130 dated 11.2.2015 ( Ex. OP-5) that the date of death of buffalo was 1.7.2014 and the post-mortem was conducted on 2.7.2014. In our view this objection is not tenable because it is a clerical mistake which was rectified by the Veterinary Surgeon through letter dated 11.2.2015 Ex. OP-5. Apart this the  tag number  issued by the opposite party is tallies with the post-mortem report Ex. C-3 with policy schedule Ex. OP-8 issued by opposite party at the time of issuing the policy. Moreover, the opposite party has also failed to file surveyor report for which they relied upon. So plea taken by the  opposite party  is not tenable because  in the spot survey, surveyor has found that the description of the  dead buffalo  does not  tally with their health certificate.  
7.    In view of the above discussion, the opposite party has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant as discussed above in para No6 of this order. We have no hesitation to allow the complaint of the complainant.   Hence, the complaint of the complainant is hereby allowed with cost directing the opposite party to pay the insured amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. fifty  thousand only)  to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving the certified copy of the order. In case of failure, the opposite party  will pay a simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 11.3.2015 till its realization. The opposite party  will also pay a sum of Rs.3000/- (Rs. Three thousand only) as assessed litigation expenses to the complainant. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
Announced on: 27.7.2016
                                              President,
       Member       Member                 District Consumer Disputes                                          Redressal Forum, Jind

 

            Dalbir Vs. NIC

Present:  Sh. P.K Batra Adv. for complainant.
          Sh. Satish Bhardwaj Adv. for opposite party. 
              
             Arguments heard. To come up on 27.7.2016 for orders. 
                                      President,
        Member              Member         DCDRF, Jind
                                  25.7.2016
    
              
Present:  Sh. P.K Batra Adv. for complainant.
          Sh. Satish Bhardwaj Adv. for opposite party. 
              
                   
             Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.  
                                       President,
        Member              Member         DCDRF, Jind
                                  27.7.2016