BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                                      Complaint No.: 29 of 2011.

                                                                      Date of Institution: 14.1.2011.

                                                                      Date of Decision: 31.7.2015.

Basti Ram son of Shri Chhotu Ram, resident of village Nihalgarh, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, district Bhiwani.

                                                                      ….Complainant.     

                                        Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.  having its registered office at Oriental House, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi and its Branch Office near Fountain Chowk, Rohtak Road, Charkhi Dadri, through its Branch Manager.   

…...Opposite Party.

                    COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF

                    THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President

Shri Balraj Singh, Member

Present:-   Shri V.P Advocate, for complainant.

       Shri Mukesh Jangra, Advocate for OP.

ORDER:-

Rajesh Jindal, President:

                    The case of the complainant in brief, is that he was owner of a Buffalo which was insured with the opposite party. Unfortunately the insured Buffalo of the complainant died on 13.4.2010 and the Post Mortem No.31 dated 14.4.2010 of the insured Buffalo was got conducted from the Veterinary Surgeon, Govt. Vety. Hospital, Godana. The complainant further alleged that after completion of all the formalities he submitted claim form but the claim of the complainant was closed as “No Claim” on false grounds. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the opposite party, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and as such, he had to file the present complaint.

2.                 On appearance, the opposite party filed written statement alleging therein that as per investigation report dated 4.5.2010 the particulars of the dead Buffalo were not tallying with the insured Buffalo as per health certificate, so the claim of the complainant was repudiated as “no claim” and he was informed accordingly vide registered letter dated 6.7.2010. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure C1 Photostat copy of Stock Cattle Form, Annexure C2 Photostat copy of Health Certificate, Annexure C3 Photostat copy of PMR Annexure C4 & P5 Photostat copies of Certificate issued by the Panch of village Nihalgarh, Annexure C6 Photostat Valuation Certificate, Annexure C7 Photostat copy of Schedule of Premium, Annexure C8 Photostat copy of repudiation letter dated 5.7.2010 along with supporting affidavit.

4.                In reply thereto, the opposite party placed on record Annexure R1 Photostat copy of investigation report, Annexure R2 Photostat copy of application for settlement of claim, Annexure C3 Photostat copy of PMR, Annexure R4 Photostat copy of Evaluation Certificate, Annexure R5  along with supporting affidavit.

5.                Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the claim of the complainant has been reiterated by the opposite party on false grounds.

6.                 The counsel for opposite party reiterated the contents of the reply.  He submitted that as per the report of investigator Annexure R-1, the features of the dead buffalo do not match with the features of the buffalo which was insured with the opposite party and the same has been mentioned in the health certificate of the buffalo.

7.                 As per the post mortem report Annexure C-3 the tag No.28977 of the dead buffalo has been mentioned.  The buffalo with the same tag number was insured by the opposite party.  The tag is material for the settlement of the claim.  In view of the PMR Annexure C-3, the insured buffalo had died during the currency of the insurance period, so the opposite party is liable to pay the claim to the complainant.  Resultantly the claim of the complainant is partly allowed and direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- to this insured sum, with litigation cost of Rs.1500/-.  This order be complied with by the Opposite party within 45 days from the date of passing of this order, otherwise the opposite party shall be liable to pay the interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment on the amount of Rs.30,000/-.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: -31.7.2015.

                                                                                    (Rajesh Jindal)                        

President,

                                                                                District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

                                   (Balraj Singh)    

                                     Member.