BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,BHIWANI.
Complaint No.97 of 2016.
Date of Instt.: 13.05.2016.
Date of Decision: 14.10.2019
Manjeet son of Dhup Singh, r/o village Ghuskani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
Complainant
Versus
Oriental Insurance Company Limited opp. Nehru Park, Bhiwani through its Branch Manager.
Opposite party.
Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Before: Hon’ble Mr. Nagender Singh, President.
Hon’ble Mr. Shriniwas Khundia, Member.
Argued by: Sh.R.N.Rohilla, counsel for complainant.
Sh.M.L.Sardana, counsel for opposite party.
ORDER
PER NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed this complaint against the Insurance Company with the averments that his buffalo was insured vide policy No.261202/47/2015/1857 on 20.01.2015 having validity from 20.01.2015 to 19.01.2016 as per the policy of Haryana Government under Animal Husbandry & Dairying Department Haryana under scheme SCSP/GOI/State vide Health cum Evaluation Certificate Sr.No.2014-15/5272 dated 10.01.2015 and ear tag No.59504 was tagged in the ear by Veterinary Surgeon. On 02.11.2015 said buffalo died and the post mortem of the dead buffalo was conducted on 03.11.2015 by Veterinary Surgeon, Mithathal Veterinary Hospital, Bhiwani vide PMR No.000374. After the death of the buffalo, the complainant informed the insurance company and also completed all the formalities with regard to depositing of concerned documents but the insurance Company repudiated the claim of the complainant without any reasonable cause. The complainant has visited the office of the opposite party many a times and requested for settling the claim but in vain. The act and conduct of the opposite party has not only caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant but also fall within the definition of deficiency in service on its part.
2. The opposite party appeared and filed its reply wherein it has been submitted that the said buffalo was reported to be dead on 02.11.2015 and after receiving intimation Sh.Satish Kumar Yadav, Surveyor/ was deputed to verify the death, who in his report had opined that the dead buffalo was aged 6 years whereas the insured buffalo was 5 years of age, the dead buffalo was 7 months pregnant and calf was sold whereas the insured buffalo was having male calf of 20 days. The tag No.OIC-13-59504 seemed to be fixed recently in the left ear of the dead buffalo. At the time of spot verification, the insured buffalo was loaded in a tractor trolley. The photographs taken by the insurance company at the time of insurance does not match with the photographs of dead buffalo. The insurance company has rightly repudiated the claim. There is no deficiency in service on the part of insurance company. Objections about maintainability, cause of action, jurisdiction and estoppal have also been taken. Other allegations of the complainant have also been controverted by the opposite party. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.
3. The parties have led their evidence in the form of affidavits and documents. The complainant has tendered in evidence his documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C6 whereas the opposite party has tendered documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R10.
4. Heard. We have examined the pleadings and documents of the parties very carefully.
5. The material available on the case file transpires that the complainant had purchased an insurance policy from the opposite party on 20.10.2015 valid upto 19.01.2016 (Annexure C3) insuring his buffalo. It is also established on the case file that the buffalo was having tag No.59504 (Annexure C4) Health-cum Evaluation Certificate. There is also no dispute that the buffalo of the complainant has died and this fact is even clear from a copy of the post mortem report Annexure C5. It is also not in dispute that the complainant had submitted his claim to the opposite party for the dead buffalo which died during the subsistence of the policy.
6. Now the only point for determination by this forum is as to whether the insurance company has rightly and legally repudiated the claim of the complainant. Perusal of the post mortem report reveals that the dead buffalo was 5 years and 10 months old and was of Murrah breed and was having ID tag No. 59504. The insurance-company is relying upon the report of surveyor Annexure R4 but it appears that such an investigation was got done by the Insurance Company for its own satisfaction without leading any independent evidence despite the fact that the doctor who had conducted the post mortem on the dead buffalo has specifically mentioned in the post mortem report Annexure C5 that the dead buffalo was having tag No.59504. The insurance company has committed an error in not releasing the insurance amount of the dead buffalo in favour of the complainant and this approach is totally illegal and cannot be accepted. More-so, the insurance-company, at this stage, cannot dispute the identity of the buffalo. Thus, we have no doubt in our mind in holding that the dead buffalo was the same which was insured with the opposite party and there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not releasing the insurance amount also in favour of the complainant.
7. For the reasons and findings recorded above, we hereby allow the complaint against opposite party directing it to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-, the insured amount of the dead buffalo, to the complainant within 45 days failing which the amount would carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- in lump sum for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant. The compliance of this order be made within a period of 45 days. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum
Dated: - 14.10.2019
(Shriniwas Khundia) (Nagender Singh)
Member President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
