BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                          Consumer Complaint no.228 of 2017                                                                          

                                                        Date of Institution         :    13.09.2017

                                                          Date of Decision   :   16.1.2018.

Gurbhej Singh son of Shri Gopal Singh, resident of VPO Kariwala, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.

                                                               ……Complainant.

                                      Versus.

Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Opposite Janta Bhawan, New Mandi, Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.

                                                                 ...…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. Sanjeev Kumar,  Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Ravinder Goyal, Advocate for opposite parties.

 ORDER

                   The case of complainant in brief is that complainant is a poor person and is an agriculturist having meager land. The cow of the complainant was insured with opposite party vide insurance policy No.261503/47/2016/2294 for the period with effect from 5.2.2016 to 4.2.2019 for a sum of Rs.30,000/-. The above said cow was given tag no.OIC/191875 by the op. The cow of the complainant was cross bread and aged about 4½ years. It is further averred that cow of the complainant fell ill and died on 13.9.2016 due to acute tympany and post mortem of cow was conducted by Veterinary Surgeon, Govt. Hospital Sat Nagar, Sirsa vide PMR No.5129 dated 14.9.2016. That after the death of cow, the complainant informed the op about death of his cow and accordingly Sh. Risal Singh, Investigator visited the house of the complainant and investigated the matter thoroughly. All the necessary documents were handed over to him. That the complainant presented his claim to the opposite parties and all the documents were also submitted to op and requested to pay him suitable compensation but all in vain and after postponing the matter with one pretext or the other, the op has repudiated the claim of the complainant vide repudiation letter dated 14.6.2017 on the ground that right ear of cow is small size (notched) as compared to insured cattle as per photos. The shape of pull and nozyle of the cow varies from insured cow. Jaw size seems to be broader. That the repudiation letter is wrong and incorrect, against law, against facts, null and void and against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and same is liable to be set aside. In fact tag was attached which was correct, PMR was conducted by doctor in which description of cow was very much clear with the health certificate. Even the investigator has also not raised any such type of objection while inspecting the cow and has found the claim of complainant to be true and correct. It is further averred that complainant approached and requested the opposite party to admit his claim and to pay him suitable compensation but all in vain and the op has finally refused to admit the claim of complainant. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that the claim lodged by the complainant was minutely scrutinized and investigated and during the course of such scrutiny and investigation, it transpired that the right ear of insured cow was small size (notched) as compared to the insured cattle as per photos, the shape of pull and nozyle of the cow varied from the insured cow and jaw size seems to be broader. Therefore, the identification of the insured cow did not match with the cow dead for which the complainant lodged the claim and thus claim of complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 14.6.2017 in a legal and lawful manner. The repudiation letter has been issued to the complainant in a legal and lawful manner, as fully detailed above and the said letter is perfectly legal and valid and the same is not liable to be set aside/ quashed. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied.

3.                The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1 and copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C17. On the other hand, op produced affidavit of Sh. Sushil Kumar, Senior Divisional Manager as Ex.R1, copies of documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R4, photographs Ex.R5 to Ex.R12, copies of documents Ex.R13 to Ex.R15.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

5.                The perusal of the evidence of the complainant reveals that complainant in his affidavit Ex.C1 has specifically deposed that he was owner of a cow which was insured with the opposite party for the period 5.2.2016 to 4.2.2019 for Rs.30,000/- and the said cow expired on 13.9.2016. Post mortem examination on the dead body of said cow was conducted by Veterinary Surgeon, Govt. Hospital Sat Nagar. A thorough investigation was got conducted by opposite party through their investigator Risal Singh who submitted his detailed report. The perusal of the report of the investigator Ex.C10 upon which the op has relied reveals that investigator has specifically reported that from his investigation and inquiry it is proved that cow of insured Gurbhej Singh bearing tag No. OIC191875 had expired on 13.9.2016 at about 7.30 p.m. and there is no suspicion in this regard and at the time of investigation, tag No.OIC 191875 was correctly found in the ear of the deceased cow and on the health certificate of the cow same number was written but in the policy no.2016/2294 in the end of tag number, 72 instead of 75 has been written and in his opinion, the claim of the insured may be true and correct. So, it appears from the evidence of the parties as well as report of the investigator that cow of the complainant which was insured with the opposite party had expired and it also appears that opposite party has arbitrarily and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant though complainant is entitled for the claim as per terms and conditions of the policy.     

6.                In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party to pay the claim of the complainant i.e. insured value of Rs.30,000/- of the deceased insured cow of the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. We also direct the op to further pay a sum of Rs.3000/- 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:16.1.2018.                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                       Redressal Forum, Sirsa.