Naveen Puri, President;

1        The complainant Gurdial Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (herein after called as 'the Act') against the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Having its branch office near Satkar Palace, Amritsar road Tarn Taran through its Branch Managerand others (Opposite Parties) on the allegations of deficiency in service and negligence in service on the part of opposite party with further prayer to direct the opposite party No. 1 to release the insurance claim of Rs. 35,000/- to the complainant besides this the complainant requests for damages and compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- as costs of litigation.

2        The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is a farmer and for his personal daily needs he had purchased one buffalo of black colour by availing loan from the opposite party No. 2; that the complainant got the Buffalo insured from the opposite party No. 1 for an insurance cover of Rs. 35,000/- by paying insurance premium of Rs. 2,654/- to the opposite party on 15.3.2013 and the validity and cover of the insurance policy was up to 14.3.2016; that the opposite party No. 1 issued an insurance policy of the cattle with policy No. 23308/47/2013-856; that the insured Buffalo of the complainant was got examined by the Doctor from Civil Veterinary Hospital Sarhali and a health certificate was issued at the time of purchasing the Buffalo from one Kulwinder Kaur wife of Kala Singh of same village and this health certificate was supplied to the insurance company i.e. opposite party No. 1 and as such, health of the cattle was excellent when the same was insured by the opposite party No.1; that unfortunately the insured cattle died on intervening night of 25/26.1.2016 and the same was immediately intimated to the opposite party No. 1 and the doctor of Civil Veterinary Hospital Sarhali conducted the postmortem of the dead animal at the spot on 26.1.2016 and post mortem report was prepared by him. It was supplied to the representative of opposite party No. 1 who was present at the time of conducting the same and he assured the complainant that the insurance claim will be released to the complainant in a couple of days. The tag attached and affixed to the insured Buffalo at the time of getting it insured was detached by the Veterinary hospital from the dead body of the cattle and also handover to representative of opposite party No. 1. The photographs of the dead cattle were also clicked before conducting the postmortem of the dead cattle which were also supplied to the representative of opposite party No. 1; that the complainant awaited for the insurance claim of the dead cattle i.e. Rs. 35,000/- release from the opposite party No. 1 but due to repeated request and a long wait the same was not issued by the opposite party No. 1; that the cause of action in the present complaint accrued on 30.6.2016 when the complainant received a letter dated 29.6.2016 from the opposite party No. 1 by which no claim was issued on the unreasonable excuse of non-presence of the number on the tag detached from the dead body of buffalo and same is totally false and lame excuse; that the opposite party No. 1 is guilty of inefficiency, negligence, unfair trade practice by not releasing the insurance claim of Rs. 35,000/- to the complainant of dead buffalo got insured by it.  Hence complaint was filed.

3        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties and Opposite Party No. 1 appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint on the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law because the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is mentioned in the insurance policy that ‘no tag no claim’. In the complaint in question no tag has been traced out from the body of the buffalo. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any claim. On merits, it is pleaded that the identity of buffalo is disputed.  Nothing has been mentioned in the post mortem report regarding the tag of buffalo and the number printed on the tag of buffalo. The claim of the complainant has rightly been denied by the opposite party No. 1 because no tag has been traced out from the body of the buffalo and nothing has been mentioned regarding the tag and its number from the post mortem report. The complainant is unnecessarily dragging/ harassing the opposite party No. 1 in to false litigation and all the other allegations in the complaint have been denied by the opposite parties and prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

4        The opposite party No.2 appeared through its counsel Sh. Pankaj Joshi Advocate and on 24.1.2017 neither anybody appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 nor filed written version or deposited any costs and consequently vide order dated 24.1.2017, the opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against exparte.

5        Sufficient opportunities were granted to the parties to lead evidence in order to prove their respective case. Ld. counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex. C-1 alongwith documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-6 and closed her evidence and thereafter Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Gurdeep Singh Ex. OP1/1 alongwith document Ex. OP1/2 and closed the evidence.

6        We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and opposite party No. 1 and have gone through the evidence and documents placed on the file by the parties.

7        We have carefully examined the documents/ evidence produced on record (along with the scope of ‘adverse inference’ for that ignored to be produced) to support/ prove their respective ‘claims’ as pleaded by the present litigants in the light of the arguments as put forth by their learned counsels, while adjudicating the present complaint. We find that the insured Buffalo (in question) had allegedly died on the night of 25/26.01.2016 (Affidavit Ex.C1) and its Post Mortem conducted on 26.01.2016 and all the related documents including the Ear Tag (Insurance) were duly handed over to the authorized agent of the OP insurers. We further find that the complainant has duly proved the contents of his complaint through the produced evidentiary documents exhibited here as: Ex.C2 to Ex.C6.

8        We further find that the OP insurers have vehemently repudiated (affidavit Ex.OP1/1) the impugned buffalo death claim for the lone reason that the tag-number part of the insured buffalo’s ear-tag was found broken (away from the tag) and thus the impugned repudiation was justified in terms of the related insurance policy Ex.OP1/2. However, we find that the OP insurers have produced no cogent evidence of the allegedly ‘broken’ ear-tag at the time of the insured buffalo’s death. There has been no ‘deposition’ of the insurance agent as to his having in receipt of the broken ‘ear-tag’ and as to why he accepted the receipt of the tag with broken number-part. Moreover, it has been the responsibility/duty of the OP insurers to have designed the buffalo insurance ‘ear-tags’ as ‘fool-proof’ not-prone to tampering.    

9        Thus, we find that the impugned repudiation (Ex.C4) of the instant insurance claim at the hands of the OP insurers certainly infringes the consumer rights of the complainant all the more so at the face of the receipt of the ear-tag by the OP1 insurers’ own agent at the conduct of the insured buffalo’s post-mortem. Presently, we find that the OP insurers have not been able to justify the impugned ‘claim-repudiation’ and did not even attempt to settle the ‘claim’ as of ‘now’ during the ‘pendency’ of the present complaint to show/ exhibit its bona fide intentions but it chose otherwise and thus we hold it guilty of ‘deficiency in service’ and ‘unfair trade practices’ etc.

10      In the light of the all above, we partly accept the present complaint and thus ORDER the OP Insurers to pay the full Insured Value of the insured Buffalo (under the related Policy)to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders along with Rs 5,000/- as compensation besides Rs 3,000/- as cost of litigation, otherwise the aggregate award amount shall attract interest @9% PA from the date of filing of the complaint till actually paid.   

11      Copy of the orders be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.