Haryana

Kurukshetra

255/2017

Tarlok Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

OIC - Opp.Party(s)

Paras Manocha

12 Apr 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.255 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 11.12.2017.

                                                     Date of decision: 12.04.2019.

 

Tarlok Singh s/o Sh. Surjeet Singh, resident of village Niwarsi, Tehsil Ladwa, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office: Sabharwal Market, Railway Road, Kurukshetra- 136118.

….Opposite party.

BEFORE     Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

 

Present:     Sh. Paras Manocha, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. R.K.Singhal, Advocate for the opposite party.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Tarlok Singh against Oriental Insurance Company, the opposite party.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that on 30.12.2015 the complainant got insured his one cow and one buffalo with the op vide cover note no.1056043 for the period 31.12.2015 to 30.12.2018 and the op issued tag no.OIC-196814 for buffalo and tag no. OIC-196808 for cow. It is further alleged that op did not provide any document such as insurance cover note and insurance policy, however, tag no.OIC-196808 has been provided on account of insurance of cow and complainant put the same on the ear of the cow. It is further alleged that complainant has arranged the insurance cover from other sources after death of cow. It is further averred that cow of complainant expired on 22.8.2017 and complainant in the absence of aforesaid documents could not do the required formalities. However, the complainant telephonically informed the op and also visited Kurukshetra office but nothing has been done by op till 28.8.2017 and complainant was constrained to remove the tag number fixed in the ear of cow in the presence of villagers. After waiting for sufficient time, the complainant submitted a written request on 28.8.2017 and further when the op did not answer the same, the complainant had to file an application under RTI on 28.9.2017 to seek information qua payment of compensation but to no avail and op sent repudiation letter dated 24.10.2017 and informed that complainant has not got conducted the post mortem, not shown dead cow to the investigator and also there was no physical inspection. The repudiation letter dated 24.10.2017 is totally invalid, unlawful against the principle of natural justice. Hence, this complaint for a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.40,000/- as insurance amount with interest @12% per annum from the date of death of cow and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as damages, Rs.10,000/- as compensation for unfair trade practice and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.             Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed reply raising certain preliminary objections regarding locus standi, maintainability and locus standi, suppression of material facts, cause of action and jurisdiction etc. It is submitted that true facts are that the policy of insurance was issued in the name of Veterinary Surgeon Dabkhera, District Kurukshetra for the period 31.12.2015 to 30.12.2018 and one cow and one buffalo of complainant was insured under the policy of insurance. It is worth to mention herein that complainant has alleged that cow has died on 22.8.2017 and he had given the intimation to answering op on 28.8.2017, which itself shows that the complainant had concealed the factum of death of cow from the answering op for more than six days. It is further submitted that on receipt of information regarding the death of cow, Shri R.N. Sharma Investigator was deputed, who had visited the spot on 28.8.2017 itself but the cow was not shown to the investigator as the same had already been lifted. Moreover, no opportunity was given to the answering op for inspection of the dead cow and even the post mortem was not conducted on the dead cow. The cause of death of cow was not known and as such, the claim was not payable and the same was repudiated by competent authority vide letter dated 24.10.2017 giving the detailed reasons for repudiation of claim. It is further submitted that investigator had met with the complainant who has made his statement in writing in which it has been admitted that no post mortem was conducted and even the veterinary surgeon was not informed regarding the death of cow, which shows that a false and fabricated story has been manipulated by the complainant later on in order to extort the money from the insurance company. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

4.             Ld. Counsel for complainant tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A, tag Ex.C1, photographs Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and documents Ex.C5 to Ex.C13. On the other hand, learned counsel for op tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6.

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

6.             There is no dispute that cow of the complainant was insured with the opposite party. The tag number OIC 196808 was provided to the cow of the complainant at the time of insurance and same was put in the ear of the cow. The said tag number has been placed on file by complainant as Ex.C1. It is an admitted fact that insurance of the cow was effective from 31.12.2015 to 30.12.2018 i.e. for a period of three years. According to the complainant, the said cow died on 22.8.2017 but however as the op did not provide any policy document to the complainant, so in the absence of insurance cover note and insurance policy he could not do the required formalities, however, he telephonically informed the op and also visited Kurukshetra office but nothing was done by op till 28.8.2017. The complainant has also placed on file photographs of dead cow alongwith tag in question. The op has failed to prove that it is not the same cow shown in the photograph which was insured with it and that the descriptions of the cow which was insured and which is shown in the photograph do not match with each other. The op has further failed to prove that policy alongwith terms and conditions was supplied to the complainant. The op has not produced any cogent evidence in this regard. So, it is proved on record that op did not supply the insurance documents to the complainant. So the repudiation of the claim of the complainant for the death of insured cow on the above ground is not justified and clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of op. In this regard we are also fortified with the observations of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled as OIC Vs. Satpal Singh and another, (2014) 2 CPJ 374 relied upon by learned counsel for complainant. In our view the complainant is entitled to the insured amount of dead cow which was insured with the op.

7.             In view of above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party to pay insured amount of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum on the insured amount of Rs.40,000/- from the date of order till actual realization. We also direct the op to further pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.:12.04.2019.  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Tirkha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.