Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/718/2012

Sakil s/o Sh.Mutabdeen, - Complainant(s)

Versus

OIC Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ram Karan

18 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                                Complaint No. 718  of 2012.

                                                                                                Date of institution: 10.07.2012

                                                                                                Date of decision:  18.07.2016

Sakil aged about 45 years son of Mutabdeen resident of village Kalesar, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                            …Complainant.

                                                Versus                                                

1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Opp. Madhu Petrol Pump, Yamuna Nagar- Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.   
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regd. Office: Oriental House, Post Box No. A75/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002.                                                                                                                                                         …Respondents. 

Before:               SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                          SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER

Present: Sh. R.K.Kamboj, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              Sh. Naveen Kaushal, Advocate, counsel for respondents.  

 

ORDER

1.                     Complainant Sakil has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to pay claim amount alongwith interest on account of death of buffalo and also to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased a buffalo after getting loan facility from the Yamuna Nagar District Primary Coop. Agri. & Rural Development Bank Ltd., Chhachhrauli and got insured the said buffalo with the OPs. The complainant used to tide his buffalo in his house. On 09.12.2011, at about 11 A.M. when the buffalo insured with the OPs was standing in the fields in routine manner, an electricity wire suddenly broken and fell on the said buffalo due to which the said buffalo died at the spot. Thereafter, the complainant reported the matter to the concerned police station Khizrabad and in this respect DDR was recorded in the police station Khizrabad bearing GD No.4 (A) dated 10.12.2011 and complainant also got done the postmortem of the dead buffalo from Animal Husbandry & Dairying Department, Haryana vide report No. 65521-B wherein the doctor clearly mentioned that the said buffalo died due to electrocution. The complainant lodged his claim with the OPs Insurance Company and submitted all the relevant documents but the OPs Insurance Company did not pay any heed to the just and genuine requests of the complainant. The act and conduct of the OPs Insurance Company is wrong and illegal which constitute deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs Insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, no locus standi to file and maintain the present complaint; no cause of action, complaint is false and frivolous, complainant has not approached to this Forum with clean hands; estopped by his own act and conduct and on merit it has been admitted to the extent that the complainant purchased three buffalos through the Chhachhrauli Primary Coop. Agri. & Rural Dev. Bank Ltd. Chhachhrauli as per health certificate dated 18.06.2011 issued by Veterinary Surgeon bearing Tag No. 72837, 38 & 39 (Annexure R-1). It has been submitted that the tag number of none of the buffalo is mentioned in the said certificate. The said buffalo was got insured by the said bank for a sum of Rs. 35,000/- ( However as per health certificate Rs. 20,000/- Annexure R-1) only alongwith buffalos of many other persons vide Life Stock Cattle Insurance Policy No. 261701/47/2012/197 valid up to 24.06.2011 w.e.f. 23.06.2012. It has been also admitted that the complainant lodged a GD No. 4-A dated 10.12.2011 in police station, Khizrabad regarding death of a buffalo.  It has been further admitted that post mortem of the died buffalo was conducted on 09.12.2011. It has also been admitted that the complainant lodged the claim regarding the death of buffalo to the Manager, The Yamuna Nagar Distt. Primary Coop. Agri. & Rural Dev. Bank Ltd. Chhachhrauli vide letter dated 12.12.2011 and the said bank forwarded the said letter to the OPs Insurance Company. Upon this, OPs Insurance Company appointed Sh. Anil Sharma for investigation. The complainant provided Tag No. OIC/6620 to the investigator and also submitted post mortem report and claim forms but the complainant did not mention the tag number in the claim form as well as in the valuation certificate of veterinary surgeon and also in the PMR. The investigator reported that the Tag No. 6620 was in a brand new condition and was not tagged in the ear of the buffalo. However, the Sarpanch of the village Kalesar has certified that a buffalo having Tag No. OIC/6676 owned by Sh. Sakil (complainant) died on 09.12.2011 at 11.00 A.M. due to electrocution. The complainant also mentioned the said tag number OIC/6676 in his statement given to investigator. Therefore, identity of the deceased buffalo is disputed. The OPs insurance company sent a letter dated 07.05.2012 to the complainant to clarify the matter within 10 days with the instructions that if clarification is not received within 10 days, then the claim will be repudiated. The complainant has failed to submit the clarification; hence the claim has been repudiated. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.  

4.                     To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of GD No. 4-A dated 10.12.2011 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of letter dated 14.12.2011 written to Tehsildar Chhachhrauli as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of Postmortem report as Annexure C-3, Photo copy valuation certificate as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of health certificate as Annexure C-5, Photograph of buffalo as Annexure C-6 and closed his evidence.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs Insurance Company tendered into evidence affidavit of Ashish Bhatnagar, Senior Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Jagadhri as Annexure RW/A and documents such as photo copy of health certificate as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of Insurance Policy as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of DDR as Annexure R-3, Photo copy of Postmortem report as Annexure R-4, Photo copy of intimation letter as Annexure R-5, Photo copy of tag as Annexure R-6, Photo copy of valuation certificate as Annexure R-7, Photo copy of statement of Sakil as Annexure R-8, Photo copy of investigation report as Annexure R-9, Photo copy of repudiation letter as Annexure R-10 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs Insurance Company.

6.                         We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents carefully and minutely placed on the file. Counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for opposite parties reiterated the averments made in reply and prayed for its dismissal.

7.                     Learned counsel for the complainant argued at length that genuine claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OPs Insurance Company on the flimsy ground that the dead buffalo was not wearing any tag and the complainant produced tag No. OIC/6620 instead of Tag No. OIC/6676 whereas other particulars of the dead buffalo mentioned in the PMR Annexure C-3 were tallied with the particulars mentioned in the Health Certificate (Annexure R-1). Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that OPs Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim merely on the ground that the complainant produced Tag No. OIC/6620 as well as no Tag was found in the ear of the dead buffalo and referred the case law titled as Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Harish Giri Goswami and Others, Appeal No. 463/2004 decided on 31.01.2006 State Commission, Uttaranchal and referred the another case law titled as Sunita Sen Versus Incharge Officer, TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. Appeal No. FA 12/2012 decided on 12.06.2013 State Commission, Pandri Raipur Chhatisgarh.

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for the Ops Insurance Company hotly argued at length that the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated vide its letter dated Nil (Annexure R-10) as the complainant has claimed the insurance of buffalo insured bearing Tag No. 6676 but he submitted tag No. OIC/6620 to the surveyor which was in new brand condition whereas from the health certificate it is evident that three buffalos of complainant were insured to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- bearing tag No. 72837, 72838 and 72839 and the dead buffalo was not insured with the OPs Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the OPs further argued that the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated vide letter dated Nil (Annexure R-10). Hence, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Ops Insurance Company and referred the case law titled as United India Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Banbari 2003(1) CLT Page 621 State Commission, Lucknow.

9.                     After hearing the parties at length, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Insurance Company and the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated by the OPs Insurance Company. The law cited by the counsel for the complainant is not disputed but not helpful in the present case as in that case titled as Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Harish Giri Goswami and others (supra) no investigator/surveyor was deputed by the insurance company to ascertain the identity of the dead cow and the claim of the complainant was decided only on the papers submitted by the complainant. In the present case, Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma Surveyor and Loss Assessor was deputed by the Insurance Company who submitted his report dated 03.04.2012 (Annexure R-9) in which, it has specifically been mentioned the insured claimed that the said buffalo which died was with tag No. OIC/6676 but he has submitted the Tag with number OIC/6620. Further, from the perusal of postmortem report, it is evident that no tag number has been mentioned in the PMR even at the time of submitting the claim form, complainant has not disclosed any tag number which was tagged in the ear of the dead buffalo. Furthermore, the complainant has himself admitted in the statement given to the investigator/ surveyor that alleged dead buffalo was not wearing any tag at the time of death due to electrocution but the tag No. OIC/6676 was issued for that alleged dead buffalo whereas he has handed over the Tag No. OIC/6620 to the investigator instead of alleged tag bearing No. OIC/6676. Even, the complainant has also not disclosed the tag number in the DDR at the time of lodging the DDR bearing GD No.4-A dated 10.12.2011 with the police station Khizrabad. The facts of the case referred by the counsel for the OPs Insurance Company titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Banbari (supra) are fully applicable to the facts of the present case.

10.                   From the above noted circumstances, it is clear that there was no tag in the ear of the  alleged dead buffalo which died due to electrocution and the complainant has totally failed to prove that the alleged died buffalo was the insured buffalo. As such, the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated by the OPs Insurance Company vide its letter dated Nil (Annexure R-10).

11.                   Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 18.07.2016.

                                                                                          (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER