Haryana

Kurukshetra

86/2017

Prince - Complainant(s)

Versus

OIC - Opp.Party(s)

Sukhbinder Singh

06 Apr 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                Complaint no. 86/17.

                                                Date of instt.  19.4.17

                                                Date of Decision:06.04.2018.

 

Prince son of Devinder Singh, resident of village and post office Chammu Kalan, Tehsil Ismailabad, District Kurukshetra.  

       

                                                                        …….complainant

                          Vs.

 

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, Branch at Sabarwal Market, Railway Road, Kurukshetra.

 

                                                                        ….OP.

 

Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before:       Sh. G.C. Garg, President.    

                 Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.

                       

Present:      Sh. Sukhvinder Singh, Adv. for complainant.

                 Sh. Sanjeev Goel, Adv. for the Op.

ORDER:

 

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Prince against Oriental Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager, the opposite party.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that 15 Buffalos of complainant and two other persons, namely, Kulwinder Singh son of Rajinder Singh and Mohinder Singh son of Kulwant Singh were insured with the OP vide insurance cover note No.1048800 for the period w.e.f. 30.12.2015 to 30.12.2018. At the time of insurance of Buffalos the OP assured the complainant as well as other persons that in case of death of Buffalo the OP shall be liable to pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/- for each Buffalo. On 19.8.2016 one Buffalo having tag No.OIC/196236 died due to illness. Veterinary Doctor treated the said Buffalo but in vain. After the death of Buffalo, the complainant intimated the Veterinary Doctor as well as OP on the same day. The complainant submitted all the requisite documents to the OP for compensation of the insured Buffalo. The officials of the OP visited the spot and took photographs of the dead Buffalo and assured the complainant that insured amount will be disbursed as soon as possible. The complainant approached the OP many a times and requested to pay the insured amount but the OP postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and on 10.4.2017 the OP flatly refused to accept the genuine claim of the complainant. Thus, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Hence, the present complaint was moved by the complainant claiming the insured amount of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.30,000/- towards harassment and mental agony and Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses.

3.                   Upon notice, opposite party appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable. The claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated on the ground that as per investigation conducted by Mr. Vijay Kant Vashishth, Investigator deputed by the OP to investigate the claim lodged by the complainant and it came on surface that description of dead buffalo does not tally with the health certificate, as per health certificate bread mixed murrah, horn covered, Forehead white, whereas as per physical inspection by the investigator, breed non-descript, horn open and slightly covered, forehead black. The dead Buffalo is not our subject matter. So, the claim of the complainant was rejected by the OP and as such the complainant is not entitled for any compensation. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs. On merits, contents of the complaint were denied. Preliminary objections were repeated. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

4.             The complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit as Ex.CW1/A and documents as Ex.C1 to C4 and thereafter closed the evidence. On the other hand, the OP proved on record affidavit of Manoj Virk, Divisional Manager as Ex.RW1/A and affidavit of Vijay Kant Vashisht as Ex.RW2/A and documents Ex.R1 to R9 and thereafter closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

6.             The only objection to the Op is that the proper description has not been given of the buffalo in question who has expired.  However, from the papers on record, tag number of the buffalo has been given as 196236 everywhere.  In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the proper description of the buffalo has not been given.  In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant is entitled to the amount of Rs.50,000/- from the Op for the death of buffalo in question.

7.             Thus, in view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and we direct the OP to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.  The order; be complied within a period of 60 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of this order till its realization and penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite party.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record after due compliance. 

Announced in open court:

Dt.:06.04.2018.  

                                                                        (G.C.Garg)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Kapil Dev Sharma)         

                                        Member