Haryana

Kurukshetra

49/2018

Balwinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

OIC - Opp.Party(s)

Pardeep Budhwar

14 Nov 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2018.

                                                Date of instt. 01.03.2018.

                                                Date of Decision: 14.11.2019.

 

Balwinder Singh alias Balwinder Singh s/o Shri Karnail Singh, r/o Shanti Nagar (Kurri), District Kurukshetra. 

                                                                ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

 

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, a-25, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002, through its Branch Manager, Railway Road, at Kurukshetra.

 

        ………Opposite party.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.                                                   

Present:     Shri Pardeep Budhwar, Advocate for the complainant.     

Shri R.K. Singhal, Advocate for the opposite party.

           

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Balwinder Singh against The Oriental Insurance Company, the opposite party.

2.             The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant was the owner of buffaloes of age 4 years and same was insured with the OP vide Policy No.261303/47/2018/323 of Rs.55,000/- and Tag No.03517 was attached to the said buffalo, which was purchased by him from one Naresh Kumar s/o Shri Kamaljeet. The said buffalo was died on 09.10.2017 due to drowning in the pond and postmortem of the same was done by Veterinary Surgeon, Thol on 10.10.2017 at about 11:20 AM. He filed a claim petition before the OP vide claim No.261303/47/2018/000240. The complainant approached the OP time and again regarding the said claim, but the OP refused to pay the same. By not paying his genuine claim, the OP is deficient in service. Hence, this complaint.

3.             Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections regarding locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action and jurisdiction. It is stated that the complainant has concealed the true & material facts from this Hon’ble Forum. The true facts are that immediately on receipt of intimation regarding the death of buffalo, Shri R.N. Sharma, Investigator was deputed to conduct the investigation, who had conducted a thorough inquiry and came to the conclusion that ear tag was not found intact in the ear of the dead buffalo and number side of ear tag was missing. It is worth to mention here that ear tag is very essential for the identification of insured buffalo and as such, it could not be established that the insured buffalo had died. It is the basic principle that no claim will be payable in the absence of the ear tag and hence, the present claim was not payable and the same was repudiated by the competent authority after considering all the relevant facts and after applying its mind. The OP has not committed any deficiency and the present complaint may kindly be dismissed with heavy costs.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-5 and closed the evidence.           

5.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has reiterated all the averments mentioned in the complaint. Contrary to it, the learned counsel for the OP has also reiterated all the contents mentioned in his reply.

7.             Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant got insured his two buffaloes with the OP through Animal Husbandry Department, Kurukshetra for a total sum of Rs.1,10,000/- valid upto 14.6.2017 to 13.6.2018 against Tag Nos.03517 & 03518, vide Policy Schedule Ex.C-6. The grievance of the complainant is that one of the said insured buffalo was died due to drowning in the pond and in this regard, he lodged the claim with the OP, who repudiated his claim on the ground that ”Number side of ear tag of buffalo was found missing, hence, it is not established that buffalo which is died was having ear tag No.03517”. Now the only point for determination by this forum is as to whether the respondent-company rightly and legally repudiated the claim of the complainant. There is no dispute that one buffalo had died, but there is no credible evidence on the file whether the dead buffalo was insured with the insurance company or not. First relevant document in this respect is a copy of the post mortem report Ex.C-5 of the dead buffalo conducted by the Veterinary Surgeon on 10.10.2017, wherein, in the column No.1 “Identification No./Mark”, no Tag Number was mentioned, meaning thereby that at the time of post mortem there was no tag in the ear of the dead buffalo of the complainant. As per terms and conditions of the policy Ex.R-1, “No Tag No Claim”. However, it is pertinent to mention here that an insurance policy is a contract between the two parties and as such, both the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the policy. Thus, when no tag was found intact on the ear of the dead buffalo of the complainant at the time of her death, the respondent-company rightly and legally repudiated the claim of the complainant as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Hence, we found no deficiency on the part of the OP in providing the services.

8.             In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed against the OP with no order as to costs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance. 

 

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.:14.11.2019.                                                   (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.