BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                                   Complaint No.: 147 of 2016.

                                                                   Date of Institution: 13.07.2016.

                                                                   Date of Decision: 11.01.2019.

Raj Kaur wife of Shri Dharampal, resident of village Garwa, Tehsil Siwani, District Bhiwani.

                                                                             ….Complainant.

                                      Versus

The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Circular Road, opposite Nehru Park, Bhiwani.

…...Opposite Party.

                   COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF

                   THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before: -      Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

                   Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.

                   Hon’ble Ms. Renu Chaudhary, Member.

Present:       Shri Shankar Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri Mahipal Tanwar, Advocate for the OP.

ORDER:-

PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT

                   The case of the complainants in brief, is that she was owner of a Cow which was insured from OP vide Policy No. 1280, having Tag No. OIC-208036. It is alleged that the Cow of complainant was died on 24.2.2016 and Post Mortem was conducted by the Veterinary Surgeon and he removed the tag No.OIC-208036 of cow. It is further alleged that the OP was informed telephonically, as the incident took place during the Jat Agitation and period of curfew and due to this the officer of the OIC could not came to the site.  It is further alleged that the complainant handed over the PMR No.37419, claim form-cum-valuation certificate No.000768, Tag and letter No.186 issued by the Veterinary Surgeon and other documents including verification certificate to the investigation officer of OP Company in presence of Sarpanch and other respectable members of the Society.  It is further alleged that despite submission of all the documents and completing of all the formalities, the OP did not pay the insured amount of cow to the complainant and kept delaying the matter.  Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP and as such, the complainant has suffered the mental tension, physical harassment and financial losses.  Hence, the present complaint.

2.                On appearance, the OP filed the contested written statement and contested the claim of the complainant only on the ground that complaint is pre-mature.  It is alleged that the complainant has mentioned in her statement that the cow was not ill, whereas the doctor has mentioned that the cow was ill and clarification was sought from the complainant vide letter dated 12.9.2016. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                Ld. counsel for the complainant to prove her case placed on record affidavit one Rajender Singh as Annexure CW-2/A and documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-15, Annexure C-16/A to C-16/D and closed the evidence. 

4.                 Ld. counsel for the OP to prove their case placed on record duly sworn affidavit of Branch Manager as Ex. RW1/A and documents Ex. R1 to R5 and closed the evidence.

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

6.                Learned counsel for the OP has contended that during the pendency of the complaint, the claim of the complainant has been settled and the insured amount of Rs.40,000/- has been paid to her.  Ld. counsel for the complainant also admitted this fact.  But ld. counsel for complainant has contended that the claim was settled by the OP after long time of filing of this complaint i.e. even after filing written statement by the OP.  It is also contended by ld. counsel for the complainant that she has completed all the necessary formalities well within time, but OP did not bother to seller her claim in time just to harass her without any reasons and prayed for compensation on account of harassment, mental agony & loss of income and he also prayed for litigation expenses.

7.                In our view, the plea taken by the OP that the complainant has made a statement that the cow was not ill, whereas the doctor in PMR has mentioned that the cow was ill, is not tenable at all, because it has no impact on the settlement of claim.  It is admitted fact by the OP that the cow of the complainant was insured with them.  It is pertinent to mention here that the OP Company sent letter dated 12.9.2016 Annexure R2 to the complainant after filing of this complaint before this Forum, so the plea taken by the OP that complaint is pre-mature is also not tenable.  On the other hand, the complainant has successfully proved her case by placing on record the copies of certain documents i.e. duly sworn affidavit, PMR, insurance policy etc.  The OP even failed to rebut the case of the complainant by placing on record some cogent & convincing evidence to show that they have tried even a single effort to settle the claim for such a long period, before complainant approach this Forum.  It is clearly established on record that the OP has failed in settling the claim of the complainant within a reasonable time period, despite several requests.  Moreover, it has been brought to the notice of this Forum by ld. counsel for the OP that during the pendency of this complaint, they settled the claim of the complainant and paid her the insured amount of Rs.40,000/-.  It is also pertinent to mention here that even after completion of all the formalities and supplies all the relevant documents well within time by complainant, the OP Company has failed to reimburse the loss of the complainant for which they charged the money from the complainant and for which they allured & assured the general public to provide smooth services of insurance.  Thus, there is gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP and they cannot be allowed to run away from their responsibility and harassing the poor consumers.

8.                Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, the complaint of complainant is partly allowed with costs.  Thus, the OPs are directed to: -

i.        To pay interest @ 8% p.a. on the amount of Rs.40,000/- from the date of filing this complaint till the date of actual payment, as punitive damages.

iii.      To pay Rs.5000/- as litigation charges. 

The compliance of the order shall be made within 30 days from the date of the order.  In case of default, the OP shall liable to pay the interest @ 18% p.a. on total amount as directed above vide clause No. i to iii from the date of default i.e. after 30 days from the date of this order i.e. 11.1.2019.  Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.      

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 11.01.2019.       

(Renu Chaudhary)         (Parmod Kumar)        (Manjit Singh Naryal)

Member.                        Member.                         President,

                                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.