BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.177 of 2017
Date of Institution : 21.7.2017
Date of Decision : 20.12.2017.
Bhal Singh aged about 44 years son of Shri Sahi Ram, resident of village Dhaban Post Office Bupp, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., through its Manager, having its office at Opp. Janta Bhawan, Sirsa, Distt. Sirsa.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L. AHUJA …………..PRESIDENT.
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Aashish Singla, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
The case of complainant in brief is that complainant was owner of one buffalo of breed Murrah aged 6½ years colour black with identification mark of curved horn and black tail. That the complainant got his above said buffalo insured with opposite party at Sr. No.4 of insurance policy No.261503/47/2016/927 through Deputy Director Live Stock Insurance Scheme valid w.e.f. 18.11.2015 to 17.11.2018 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and had paid the premium amount. A health cum evaluation certificate was also issued for this buffalo by the op. A tag bearing No.160006/445995 was inserted in the ear of the buffalo. It is further averred that on 13.3.2017, the buffalo suddenly fell ill and unluckily died due to some respiratory problem. Its information was immediately sent to the veterinary hospital and post mortem was conducted upon the body of the buffalo on the next day. Post mortem report bearing No.10540 dated 14.3.2017 was prepared by the veterinary doctor in this regard. It is further averred that op was immediately informed about this mis-happening and a live stock claim form cum valuation certificate dated 14.3.2017 was also furnished with the op through the veterinary surgeon, Government Veterinary Hospital Dhaban, Sirsa describing the species, breed, sex, colour, physical identification mark, age and tag details etc. of the deceased buffalo. A live stock claim form bearing No.002653 was also furnished with the op by the complainant himself. The spot inspection was also conducted by the Sub Divisional Officer, Animal Husbandry and Dairy, Sirsa for verification of tag and report was furnished to this effect. It is further averred that the insurance company after receipt of the information regarding claim had appointed the surveyor/investigator to investigate the matter and to give the report about the same. The investigator had visited the house of the complainant and had collected all the required documents. He was also handed over the original tag bearing No.160006/445995 in its original condition. The investigator had thoroughly investigated the matter and had assured the complainant that he shall get the claim amount within 10-12 days of submitting his report. It is further averred that complainant had visited the office of the op many a times but at all the occasions the officials of the op kept on lingering on the matter with one pretext or the other and a few days ago astonishingly the complainant received a repudiation letter dated 21.6.2017 with the remarks that the claim has been repudiated as the tag was broken. The complainant was surprised to see this repudiation letter as the investigator was handed over the original tag in an unbroken condition and the post mortem report as well as the live stock claim form cum valuation certificate also bear that the tag number intact and there was a tag verification report of SDO (AH&D) Sirsa also in this regard. It appears that the op had taken a false ground to repudiate the claim of the complainant in a wrongful manner. That the complainant had contacted the op thereafter to withdraw the repudiation letter but the op flatly refused to pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant himself failed to reply back the query raised to him before repudiation of the claim. The query raised was “Tag was broken and pasted with some chemical” is clearly referred in the letter dated 20.4.2017 and after non receipt of reply, the file was closed as repudiated due to broken of tag. It was the duty of complainant to assist, cooperate the company for proceeding with the claim lodged by him as per norms, guidelines and terms and conditions of the policy which are available on portal of company, interest which otherwise cannot be disputed and as per terms and conditions of the policy, broken tag is to be considered as No Tag. Tag affixed in the ear of dead buffalo was found to be affixed with the chemical/ adhesive/ losan as reported by Investigator Shri Madan Goyal, Advocate who visited at spot after receipt of intimation from the insured. If tag was broken at any point of time, even then it was the duty of insured to report the company immediately and get the tag re-affixed, but complainant failed to do so, hence it is breach of term and conditions of the policy. On merits, the pleas taken in the preliminary objections are reiterated, contents of the complaint are denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint has been prayed for.
3. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9. On the other hand, op produced affidavit of Sh. Sushil Kumar, Divisional Manager Ex.R1, affidavit of Sh. Madan Goyal, Advocate as Ex.R2 and copies of documents Ex.R3 to Ex.R6.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that op has arbitrarily and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that tag was broken despite the fact that case of complainant is duly proved on file. The op has not denied the issuance of the policy by which the deceased buffalo of the complainant was insured by putting the tag bearing No. 160006/445995 and the op has not led any evidence that the deceased buffalo was not having the tag No. 160006/445995.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for op has contended that no doubt the op has repudiated the claim of the complainant as tag was found broken at the time of investigation, but however, the op can consider the claim of the complainant on non standard basis if complainant makes so offer to get his claim settled on non standard basis due to reason that tag was found broken at the time of investigation.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant has stated at bar that he has no objection if the present complaint is allowed and the op is directed to make payment of claim of the complainant on non standard basis.
8. In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party to settle and pay the claim of the complainant i.e. insured value of the deceased insured buffalo of the complainant on non standard basis as per terms and conditions of the policy within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We also direct the op to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. 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:20.12.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
