Haryana

Jind

CC/15/89

Suresh - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Pawan Dhillon

15 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 
                                           Complaint No. 83 of 2015
   Date of Institution: 6.7.2015
   Date of final order: 23.6.2016

Suresh s/o Sh. Dharam Singh r/o village Lodhar Tehsil Narwana, District Jind.
                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
National Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager SCO 1-2 near Rani Talab, Jind.

                                                          …..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. Pawan Dhillon Adv. for complainant.
              Sh. Vinod Bhardwaj Adv. for opposite party.
                   
ORDER:

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant had insured his buffalo for a sum of Rs.50,000/- vide policy No.420605/47/14/9400000243  from the opposite party valid w.e.f. 10.10.2014 to mid night of 9.10.2015 and requisite premium was deposited. The opposite party issued tag No.HLDB-09198345 regarding the identification of his buffalo and same was fixed in the ear of buffalo by the insurance company.  All of sudden on 14.6.2015 the above said buffalo fell on earth and died.  Thereafter the 
            Suresh Vs. NIC
                …2…
complainant tried to inform the insurance company regarding death of buffalo on his given mobile number but could not contact. The complainant also informed the concerned Veterinary Surgeon regarding the death of his buffalo but the concerned Veterinary Surgeon did not visit in his village and told that today i.e. 14.6.2015 was Sunday. After waiting a sufficient time the complainant buried his buffalo after taking photographs due to foul smell.  The complainant moved a written application dated 22.6.2015 through registered post and requested to pay the claim of the insured buffalo disclosing each and every facts but the opposite party did not consider the genuine claim of the complainant and avoiding to pay the claim with one pretext or the other and opposite party refused to pay the claim of the complainant of his insured buffalo. 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/-  as well as to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- 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 complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts.  On merits, it is contended that on the date of alleged illness of buffalo neither the complainant has got treated his buffalo from any Veterinary Surgeon nor after its death he has got conducted post-mortem of his dead 
            Suresh Vs. NIC
                …3…
buffalo from a Veterinary Surgeon. The complainant has not informed regarding the death of his buffalo to the opposite party. The complainant ought to have informed the opposite party in time about the death of his buffalo then the opposite party must have deputed its Independent Surveyor to investigate the matter. Even otherwise also if the insured buffalo ought to have died then its post mortem was to be got done by complainant and the description of buffalo along with tag number, age, lactation ought to have been written  by the concerned Veterinary Surgeon in his post mortem report  and this fact also falsify the claim of the complainant. The complainant is not entitled any compensation from the opposite party.   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  application dated 22.6.2015 Ex. C-2,  copy of  cattle insurance policy Ex. C-3, copies of photographs of dead buffalo Ex. C-4 and Ex. C-5, copy of postal receipt Ex. C-6, affidavit of Gaje Singh Ex. C-7 and affidavit of Ramesh Ex. C-8 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 and closed the evidence. 
4.    We have heard the arguments of Ld. counsel of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file. The contention of counsel of complainant is that on 14.6.2015 his buffalo had died and regarding 

            Suresh Vs. NIC
                …4…

the death of the buffalo he tried to inform the insurance company on 
the mobile number which was given at the time of insurance but the complainant could not contact the opposite party. The complainant also informed the concerned Veterinary Surgeon but the Veterinary Surgeon did not visit at the spot and lastly the complainant informed the insurance company through registered post on 22.6.2015 regarding the death of his buffalo. It is an admitted fact that the complainant has not informed the insurance company immediately however as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the complainant is bound to inform the insurance company regarding the death of animal immediately.  We have gone through the documents placed by the complainant  Ex. C-1 affidavit, application dated 22.6.2015 moved to Manager National Insurance Company Ex. C-2, copy of insurance cover Ex. C-3, photographs of dead buffalo Ex. C-4 and Ex. C-5. These documents could not prove the case of complainant. There are no document on the file as when the insured buffalo was examined by the Veterinary Surgeon and there is no post-mortem report on the file which connect the case of the complainant when the buffalo of the complainant was examined  and when the buffalo of the complainant died and there is no other document regarding death of the buffalo to prove the case of complainant. So, the complainant has failed to prove his case and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed and the 

            Suresh Vs. NIC
                …5…
same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
Announced on: 23.6.2016
                                              President,
       Member       Member                 District Consumer Disputes                                          Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                       Suresh Vs. NIC
                
                        
Present:  Sh. Pawan Dhillon Adv. for complainant.
              Sh. Vinod Bhardwaj Adv. for opposite party.

              Remaining arguments heard. Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. 
                                      President,
        Member              Member         DCDRF, Jind
                                  23.6.2016