BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 172 of 2018
Date of Institution : 30.05.2018
Date of Decision : 24.5.2019.
Harish Kumar son of Shri Prithvi Singh, resident of village Kharian, Tehsil Rania, Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Opposite Janta Bhawan Sirsa through its Divisional/ Branch Manager.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL….. …… MEMBER.
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………….. MEMBER
Present: Sh. A.K. Sharma, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Rakesh Bajaj, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
This a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant against the opposite party.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant was owner of one cow, which was milk giving cow. The complainant got insured the said cow through the op vide policy no.261503/47/2016/2513 valid from 13.2.2016 to midnight of 12.2.2019. The complainant paid the requisite premium of Rs.100/- and same was insured for the amount of Rs.40,000/- under the scheme of Government i.e. Animal Husbandary and Dairying Department Branch at Kharian, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa through veterinary surgeon/ veterinary doctor Shri Tarun Kumar. That before insuring the cow of complainant, the medical examination of cow was also conducted by the Veterinary surgeon and cow of complainant was not suffering from any disease at all. That in the month of June, 2016, suddenly the cow of complainant fell ill. The complainant got the medical treatment of his cow through Veterinary hospital, Kharia and had given best medical treatment but unfortunately on 17.6.2016 the cow of complainant died. The complainant informed about the same to the concerned department and at 5.30 P.M. on the same day, post mortem of cow was conducted by Veterinary Surgeon/ Incharge Government Veterinary Hospital, Kharian and given his opinion that the animal died due to acute ruminal acidosis. That thereafter the complainant reported the matter to the op and submitted all the relevant documents and requested the company to pay the insured amount of Rs.40,000/- but the officials of the op always put off the matter on one pretext or the other and used to give false assurance to the complainant but no action was taken for the reasons best known to them nor the claim of complainant was repudiated. The complainant also moved an application to the Chief Minister, Haryana, Chandigarh through C.M. window Sirsa on 27.3.2017 and also gave reminder on 11.12.2017 but to no effect. It is further averred that complainant is very poor person and has lost the source of his income and is suffering from mental tension and agony at the hands of op. Hence, this complaint.
3. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that claim lodged by complainant was scrutinized by op and the factum of death of insured cow was got investigated by the op from Shri Tanuj Khattar, approved surveyor and loss assessor, Sirsa who conducted the investigation and reported that the dead cow was shifted from the place of occurrence i.e. village Kharian to village Sadwala without giving any prior intimation to the company. It is further submitted by shifting the insured cow from the place of insurance to some other place without prior intimation to the op, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Such an act and conduct on the part of complainant absolved the op from its liability to indemnify the complainant/ insured. Accordingly, vide letter dated 2.5.2017 addressed to the Deputy Director, Department of Vety. Sciences & Animal Husbandry, Kanganpur road, Sirsa, the op closed the case file of complainant which has been done in a legal and lawful manner. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. The parties then led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. The perusal of the complaint reveals that complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He has deposed that he was owner of one cow and the said cow was got insured from opposite party for the period 13.2.2016 to 12.2.2019 for an amount of Rs.40,000/-. In the month of July, 2016, the cow of complainant fell ill and died on 17.6.2016. The claim was lodged with the op but the op has not given insured amount to the complainant. On the other hand, op has furnished affidavit of Sh. S.K. Malhotra, Divisional Manager Ex.R1 who has deposed that the claim case file of complainant has been closed by op in a legal and lawful manner and op is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. The perusal of the complaint reveals that complainant has not mentioned this fact that after death of cow, same was shifted to his father-in-law’s village nor he has explained the reason of shifting. The perusal of the affidavit of complainant also reveals that he has not deposed even a single word qua shifting of cow nor he has assigned any reason in his affidavit for shifting the same. The complainant has also not denied report of the investigator Ex.R3 which was submitted by Sh. Tanuj Khattar after through investigation. So, it appears that opposite party has rightly repudiated the claim of complainant as complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
6. In view of above, the complaint of the complainant does not appear to be maintainable and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:24.05.2019. Member Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa
