BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 718 of 2019                                                                        

                                                            Date of Institution :    24.12.2019

                                                          Date of decision    :    08.05.2023

Smt. Jaspal Kaur, aged 52 years wife of Shri Mahender Singh, resident of village Kalanwali, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                                      Versus.

Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager/ Officer Incharge, Divisional Office at Sirsa, District Sirsa.

                                                                         ...…Opposite party

            Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before:       SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR………….PRESIDENT

                    SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………….MEMBER

Present:       Sh. G.S. Sra,  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. K.L. Gagneja, Advocate for opposite party.

ORDER

                   In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant being the owner of a buffalo got the same insured from opposite party (hereinafter referred as OP) vide policy No. 261592/47/2019/69 valid for the period 25.07.2018 to 24.07.2019. The said buffalo of complainant died on 4.11.2018. The post mortem was conducted by the Veternary Surgeon, Kalanwali, District, Sirsa on 4.11.2018 and cause of death was given as death might be due to shock and ultimately heart failure. It is further averred that complainant informed the op company regarding the death of insured animal and submitted all the requisite documents to the op for getting the claim under the said policy but the op insurance company did not pay any claim amount to the complainant. The complainant requested the officials of the op many time to pay the claim amount but they after prolonging the matter on one pretext or the other finally declined the claim of complainant about a week back ago without assigning any cogent reason and has repudiated the claim of complainant, which is wrong and illegal. Hence, this complaint seeking claim amount of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest besides compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.

2.       On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version submitting therein that said buffalo was insured with op vide policy no. 261592/47/ 2019/ 69 dated 24.07.2018, but same was subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as specified in Livestock Insurance Policy. The buffalo was ear tagged vide ear tag no. OIC-265118 by the insurer at the time of insurance. It is further submitted that post mortem of the dead buffalo was conducted by the Veterinary Surgeon, G.V.S. Kalan Wali on 04.11.2018 explaining the cause of death in the post mortem report. As per PMR, the buffalo died because of shock and respiratory failure. The op after receiving the intimation appointed Mr. Madan Goyal, Advocate as Surveyor/ Investigator to ascertain the factum/ cause of death of insured buffalo and on receiving the report of Investigator/ Surveyor, the claim of complainant was approved on 05.03.2019 by the competent authority for an amount of Rs.50,000/- by UTR vide claim payment voucher dated 05.03.2019. The UTR was received back by the office of op unpaid as the complainant had not provided the loan account number to the op as the buffalo had been purchased by complainant by securing loan from Union Bank of India, Kalanwali. The amount of claim was to be paid to the bank in loan account of the complainant. The complainant was asked by the official of the op to provide the loan account number time and again whenever she visited the office. It is further submitted that complainant wanted the claim amount be paid to her that is why she was not providing the loan account number and complainant may be directed to provide the loan account number, so that the claim amount could be paid. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.  

3.       The complainant in evidence has tendered her affidavit Ex. CW1/A and copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7.

4.       On the other hand, op has tendered affidavit of Sh. Virender Kumar, Sr. Divisional Manager as Ex.R1 and copies of documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R4.

5.       We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.

6.       From the health certificate Ex.C2, it is evident that on 24.07.2018 complainant purchased the buffalo in question for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and said buffalo was purchased by complainant after availing loan facility from the Union Bank of India, branch Kalawali as is evident from the said document Ex.C2. The buffalo of the complainant was also got insured with op for an amount of Rs.50,000/- for the period 25.07.2018 to 24.07.2019 as is evident from policy schedule Ex.C3 and in the said document, the first insured name is UBI and second insured name is Jaspal Kaur i.e. complainant. The death of insured buffalo on 4.11.2018 i.e. during the period of policy is also not disputed by the op and said fact is also proved from the copy of PMR Ex.C4. There is also no dispute of the fact that complainant informed the op about the death of her insured buffalo and also submitted required documents to the op for getting claim under the policy in question. The only dispute raised by op is that as complainant did not provide loan account number to the op, therefore, insured amount of buffalo was not disbursed to her loan account. In this regard op has also placed on file claim payment voucher Ex.R4 to prove that claim of the insured amount of Rs.50,000/- has been approved and sanctioned. But as loan account number was not provided by complainant to the op, so the said amount of Rs.50,000/- could not be paid to her loan account number. In this regard, op is also found right and genuine because buffalo was purchased by complainant after loan facility of Rs.50,000/- from Union bank of India branch Kalanwali and first insured in the policy is also Union Bank of India, so to avoid any legal consequences, the op did not make payment of the insured amount to the complainant and demanded loan account number of the complainant due to legal hitch. Moreover, complainant has not asserted and proved on record that she has already cleared the loan amount of the bank. So, the complainant is liable to provide loan account number to the op so that insured amount of Rs.50,000/- can be released in her loan account.

7.       In view of above, we direct the opposite party to make payment of insured amount of Rs.50,000/- in the loan account number of complainant subject to providing of loan account number by the complainant. The complainant is directed to provide loan account number to the op within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and thereafter op will make payment of above said amount in her loan account within further period of 30 days. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. The present complaint stands disposed of accordingly. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced.                                       Member                      President,

Dated: 08.05.2023.                                                          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                              Redressal Commission, Sirsa.

JK