Haryana

Jind

CC/15/116

Shisha Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Vikas Munjal

21 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 
                                           Complaint No. 110 of 2015
   Date of Institution: 25.8.2015
   Date of final order: 21.7.2016

Shisha Singh s/o Sh. Amrik Singh @ Avtar Singh r/o Sant Nagar, Patiala Chowk, Jind, Tehsil and District Jind. 

                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
National Insurance co. Ltd. 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. Vikas Munjal Adv. for complainant.
          Sh. Vinod Bhardwaj Adv. for opposite party. 
              
                   
ORDER:

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant had got insured his buffalo for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with the opposite party vide policy No.420605/47/13/9400001846 valid w.e.f. 18.11.2013 to 17.11.2014 and paid a sum of Rs.1250/- as premium.  The opposite party had issued identification mark-tag No. NIC-420605/2519 to the buffalo of the complainant. The buffalo of the complainant had died on 11.4.2014 at 4.00 A.M. due to acute Tympany. After death of buffalo, Veterinary Surgeon, G.V.H. Jind attended the dead buffalo
                Shisha Singh v/s NIC
                    ……..2……..
 and conducted its post mortem vide PMR No.8628 dated 11.4.2014 at 3.30 P.M. The complainant submitted all the necessary documents to the opposite party. The complainant made a claim with the opposite party well within time. The complainant served a legal notice dated 30.7.2015 through his counsel Sh. Vikas Munjal Adv.  upon the opposite party but all in vain. The opposite party has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 22.4.2014.   Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to pay the insured claim amount of Rs.50,000/-  as well as to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony 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 surveyor Sh. Sanjay Kumar Jain inspected the dead buffalo of the complainant and submitted his report dated 15.4.2014 that there were difference in horn and lactation of dead animal and the insured buffalo has lactated four time at the time of insurance on dated 18.11.2013 but the dead buffalo has lactated three times and tag was brand new and seems to be intacted after death as skin of ear was quite soft.  The complainant did not provide any post mortem report to the opposite party nor gave any ear tag to the opposite party. The claim of the complainant has rightly repudiated
                Shisha Singh v/s NIC
                    ……..3……..
 vide letter dated 22.4.2014. 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 policy schedule Ex. C-2, copy of valuation certificate Ex. C-3 and Ex. C-5, copy of live stock claim form Ex. C-4, copy of post-mortem report Ex. C-6, copy of letter dated 22.4.2014 Ex. C-7, copy of postal receipt Ex. C-8, copy of legal notice dated 30.7.2015 Ex. C-9 and copy of identity card Ex. C-10 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the opposite party has produced the affidavit of Sh. M.L. Arora, Sr. Branch Manager Ex. OP-1, copy of letter dated 8.7.2014 Ex. OP-2, copy of letter dated 22.4.2014 Ex. OP-3, affidavit of Sh. Sanjay Kumar Jain Ex. OP-4, copy of survey report Ex. OP-5, copy of Health cum Evaluation certificate Ex. OP-6, copies of application Ex. OP-7 and Ex. OP-8, copy of policy schedule Ex. OP-9 and copy of statement of neighbourers Ex. OP-10 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.420605/47/13/9400001846 and the said buffalo  died  due to acute Tympany on 11.4.2014 at 4.00 A.M. and the post-mortem examination was also carried out by the Veterinary Surgeon on the same date but the opposite party has repudiated the claim of the complainant vide
                Shisha Singh v/s NIC
                    ……..4……..
 letter dated 22.4.2014 as Ex. C-7 on the ground that there were differences in horn and lactation of dead animal and the insured buffalo has lactated four time at the time of insurance on dated 18.11.2013 but the dead buffalo has lactated three times  as well as tag was brand new and seems to be inserted after death as skin of ear was quite soft. The above said repudiation letter is false and there is no truth in this letter. Counsel for complainant further argued that in view of the health cum evaluation certificate Ex.OP-6 issued by Veterinary Surgeon at the time of taking the policy Ex. C-3 and post- mortem report dated 11.4.2014 Ex.C-6. The descriptions of the buffalo are same. There is no variation so opposite party wrongly repudiated the claim. 
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 horns of the cattle are mentioned horns curved whereas the dead buffalo having long horns and curved and the insured buffalo lactated four times at the time of insurance on dated 18.11.2013 but died buffalo has lactated three times. Besides this, the tag was brand new and seems to be inserted after death as skin of ear was quite soft. The claim of the complainant is rejected rightly and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 

                Shisha Singh v/s NIC
                    ……..5…….. 
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 Health Certificate Ex. OP-6, wherein the description of the insured animal regarding horns mentioned as “horns curved” as well as tag number was shown NIC420605-2519 . We have also gone through the  Post Mortem report Ex. C-6, wherein the Veterinary Surgeon in his report described the structure of the horns of the insured cattle is shown as fully curved as well as the tag number also shown of dead buffalo as NIC 420605/2519 and as such the description of the cattle in health certificate and post-mortem reports  tally with each other. The post-mortem report of the veterinary surgeon is authentic one and admissible under the law and the above document cannot be dis-believable. Apart from this the opposite party has not filed any affidavit of surveyor to support his report. The version taken by the Surveyor in his report Ex. OP-5 that long curved horns and tag  seems to be inserted after the death of the animal   has been shown  only on presumption. So plea taken by the surveyor in his report Ex. OP-5 is not tenable in the eye of law.  
7.    In view of the above discussion, the opposite party has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant as discussed above in para No.7 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 
                 Shisha Singh v/s NIC
                    ……..6……..
amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. fifty  thousands 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. 25.8.2015 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: 21.7.2016
                                              President,
       Member       Member                 District Consumer Disputes                                          Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                Shisha Singh v/s NIC                
                        
                   
Present:  Sh. Vikas Munjal Adv. for complainant.
          Sh. Vinod Bhardwaj Adv. for opposite party. 
              

             Arguments heard. To come up on 21.7.2016 for orders. 
                                      President,
        Member              Member         DCDRF, Jind
                                  20.7.2016
    
              
        

Present:  Sh. Vikas Munjal Adv. for complainant.
          Sh. Vinod 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
                                  21.7.2016