BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint no. 52 of 2015
Date of Institution: 12.3.2015
Date of Decision: 11.8.2016
Net Ram, aged about 43 years s/o Sh.Sukh Ram, r/o village Dhottar, Tehsil Rania distt. Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, opp. Janta Bhawan Road, Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
……… Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.M.S.Gill, Advocate for complainant.
Sh.A.S.Kalra, Advocate for Op.
ORDER
Brief facts of the present case are that the complainant get insured his
milk buffalo aged about 8 years 6 months having black colour and breed mix murrah loosely curved horns, tail reaches upto hock Lt. with the Ops vide cover note No.261503/47/2014/168 at Sr.no.16. Tag no.OIC69673 has been affixed by the Ops. Before insurance, Health-cum-Evaluation certificate was issued on the spot by the Veterinary Surgeon on 14.9.2013. Snaps of buffalo were also taken. The buffalo was in good health and milking 10-11Kg. per day and in this way the complainant earned Rs.6000/- per month. The price of the buffalo was Rs.70,000/-. Buffalo died on 22.6.2014. Veterinary surgeon, Dhottar conducted post mortem of buffalo and given his report. Intimation was given to the Ops and officials of the Ops visited at the spot, verified the report and took the snaps. Buffalo was pregnant about 8 months 15 days at the time of death. Complainant lodged his claim but the Op wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim vide letter dt.7.1.2015 on the ground of No tag in the ear of buffalo.
Hence, the present complaint.
2. On notice, Op appeared and contested the case. In reply, it is pleaded that complainant himself violated the terms and conditions of the policy. There was no tag in the ear of buffalo and in view of the terms and conditions of the policy no tag no claim. There was no tag in the ear of dead buffalo and claim is not payable. Op also denied other allegations of complaint.
3. By way of evidence, complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Sh.Satpal, Lamberdar Ex.CW2/A, affidavit of Sh.Harpal, Member Panchayat Ex.CW3/A, Health-cum-Evaluation certificate Ex.C1, copy of policy Ex.C2, copy of application Ex.C3, post mortem report Ex.C4, claim form Ex.C5, repudiation letter Ex.C7and photographs Ex.C7 & Ex.C8, whereas the Op produced affidavit of Branch Manager Ex.R1, repudiation letter Ex.R2, copy of investigation report Ex.R3, post mortem report Ex.R4, Health-cum-Evaluation certificate Ex.R5, claim form Ex.R6, copy of application Ex.R7 and policy Ex.R8.
4. We have heard learned counsels for parties and have gone through the record carefully.
5. From the documents produced by both the sides, identity of the deceased buffalo as insured buffalo cannot be ascertained. Admittedly, at the time of post mortem, there was no tag in the ear of the deceased buffalo. In our view, Op rightly repudiated the claim under the terms and conditions of the policy i.e. “No Tag No Claim”. Resultantly, the present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the records.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:11.8.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
