BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.293 of 2017 Date of Institution : 8.11.2017
Date of Decision : 22.10.2018.
Banta Singh son of Shri Mukhtiar Singh, resident of village Gadrana, Tehsil Kalanwali, Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Registered office Oriental House, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi through its Divisional Manager.
2. Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Office at Janta Bhawan Road, Sirsa-125055.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L. AHUJA …………..PRESIDENT.
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Raj Kumar Arora, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
The case of complainant in brief is that complainant was owner of a cow. The complainant got insured the above live stock/ cow from the opposite parties on 2.1.2016 vide insurance policy No.261503/47/2016 valid w.e.f. 2.1.2016 to 2.1.2019 for the sum assured of Rs.30,000/- against the payable insurance premium. It is further averred that at the time of insurance, the female cow of black and white colour, HP cross breed was aged about four years and was having Tag No.OIC/210394 for its identity and a health-cum-evaluation certificate was issued by Veterinary Surgeon, Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Kalanwali. That the above said cow of the complainant fell ill on 6.8.2016 (it should be 6.8.2016) and the veterinary surgeon was called by the complainant who treated the ill cow and on 8.8.2016 the cow of the complainant died due to illness. Intimation in this regard was sent by the complainant to the insurance company immediately after the death and the Surveyor of the company immediately visited the spot and verified the death of the live stock/ cow and he took the snaps of the dead cow and also got conducted post mortem of dead animal from Doctor/ V.L.D. GVH Kalanwali on 8.8.2016. The doctor of GVH thoroughly conducted the post mortem examination and reported that the cow has died ‘Due to septicemia which leads to toxemia and shock and death. That thereafter the complainant accordingly lodged the claim for the sum assured of Rs.30,000/- with the ops’ company for the death of live stock of the complainant. The surveyor of the company has investigated the matter thoroughly and being satisfied out of the genuine claim of the complainant has collected all the relevant papers including the joint statement of the village respectable whereby they have also appreciated the genuine claim of the complainant, but inspite of this the ops have repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant without any cogent reason. At the time of death, the cow was hale and hearty and was giving about 8-10 liters milk once a time. That the complainant also got sent a legal notice to the ops but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability; locus standi; suppression of true and material facts and estoppal etc. While admitting the factum of insurance of the cow, it is submitted that as per identification of the said insured cow as shown in the health certificate, the said insured cow was having black tail. It is further submitted that on receipt of information about the death of the insured cow, the same was got investigated by the op from Shri Madan Goyal, Advocate/ Investigator of Sirsa who visited the spot and made a report to the ops. The said investigator reported that as per health certificate, the insured cow was having black tail, whereas on physical examination of the dead cow, the same was having white tail and thus, the claim is doubtful. Therefore, the claim of the complainant has been repudiated being doubtful by the ops as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The said repudiation of claim of the complainant is perfectly legal and valid. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint has been made.
3. Learned counsel for complainant has tendered affidavit of complainant as Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7, postal receipts Ex.C8, Ex.C9, and acknowledgment Ex.C10. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops has tendered affidavit of Sh. Sushil Kumar, Senior Manager as Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R11.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and furnished documents i.e. copy of stock claim form Ex.C1, copy of claim form cum valuation certificate Ex.C2, copy of treatment chart Ex.C3, copy of post mortem report Ex.C4, copy of statement Ex.C5, copy of repudiation letter Ex.C6, copy of legal notice dated 5.8.2017 Ex.C7, postal receipts Ex.C8 and Ex.C9 and acknowledgement Ex.C10. On the other hand, opposite parties have furnished affidavit of Sh. Sushil Kumar, Senior Manager Ex.R1, copy of policy schedule Ex.R2, copy of health cum evaluation certificate Ex.R3, copy of post mortem report Ex.R4 and photostat copies of photographs Ex.R5 to Ex.R11.
6. It is undisputed fact between the parties that complainant was the owner of a cow which was duly insured with the opposite parties for the period 2.1.2016 to 2.1.2019 with insured value of Rs.30,000/- vide insurance policy No.261503/47/2016. It is further undisputed fact that during the validity period of insurance policy, the said cow died on 8.8.2016 and complainant has placed on record copy of post mortem report Ex.C4. The complainant had lodged the claim with the ops but however, the ops have repudiated the claim of complainant on the ground that there is doubt in the identity of the cow.
7. The perusal of the evidence of ops reveal that as per insurance policy schedule Ex.R2, the cow with identification black and white with tag No. OIC-210394 was insured by ops with insured value of Rs.30,000/- and premium of Rs.666/- was charged and it is no where mentioned in the policy schedule that tail of the cow was black at the time of insurance of the cow though ops have repudiated claim on the ground that the insured cow was having tail of black colour whereas dead cow is having tail of white colour. The perusal of the written reply as well as evidence of the ops reveal that they have not disputed the identity of the cow qua the identity tag which the cow was having at the time of its death as well as at the time of her post mortem. Mere difference of colour of tail alone is not sufficient to repudiate the claim of complainant in toto. Moreover, the ops have not led any such cogent evidence from which it could be presumed that the post mortem report made by competent authority is not of the same cow which was got insured by complainant from ops. So, it appears from the record that ops have arbitrarily and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant.
8. In view of the above, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to settle and pay the claim of complainant as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. They are further directed to pay Rs.3000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. The ops are liable to comply with this order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they will be liable to pay interest @7% per annum on the claim amount from the date of order till its realization. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Member President,
Dated:22.10.2018. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
