BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 45 of 2016.
Date of Institution: 10.3.2016.
Date of Decision: 03.6.2019.
Vinod son of Shri Raj Kumar, resident of village mehda, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, now District Charkhi Dadri.
….Complainant.
Versus
1. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office, near Bus Stand - Loharu Road, Charkhi Dadri through its Branch Manager.
2. Dr. Sandeep, Veterinary Surgeon, Government Animal Hospital, Bihri Kalan, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri.
…...Opposite Parties.
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 Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
Present: Shri V. P. Dalal, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri A. Sardana & Shri SK Ghanghas, Advocates for OP No. 1.
Shri Sandeep Lakra, Advocate for the OP No. 2.
ORDER:-
PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he was owner of two Murrah breed buffaloes having capability of 15-16 liter milk per day. It is further alleged that on 25.12.2015 the complainant has requested OP No. 2 for getting insured his buffalo and the OP No. 2 alongwith his assistant Shri Kuldeep and examined both the buffaloes of the complainant and found the same hale & healthy. It is further alleged that the OP No. 2 has accepted the request of the complainant for insuring his both the buffaloes. It is further alleged that the complainant has given the amount necessary for issuance of insurance to Kuldeep on the direction of the OP No. 2 and the OP No. 2 has given assurance for issuance of insurance of both the buffaloes. It is further alleged that Tag No.160006.636051 and 160006.635797 were given and in this regard health-cum-evaluation certificate No.OIC/2014/4059 dated 2.1.2016 has also been issued, which was signed by Veterinary Surgeon. It is further alleged that after few days on 8.1.2016 the buffalo bearing tag No. 160006.635797 become ill after delivery and the buffalo was treated by the OP No. 2. It is further alleged that as and when the complainant demanded the treatment slip and other documents of the buffalo, the OP No. 2 always kept the matter pending by giving assurance that the same will be given on next time. It is further alleged that after 7-8 days the buffalo of complainant died on 16.1.2016 in the presence of OP No. 2. It is further alleged that the OP No. 2 told that there is no need of post mortem of the buffalo, as the same died in his presence and he assured that he will sent the report to insurance company. It is further alleged that the complainant has spent Rs.18,700/- on the treatment of the buffalo and Rs.1000/- for taking photographs of the buffalo and Rs.3000/- paid to the owner of JCB for burying the buffalo. It is further alleged that the complainant has demanded death certificate and other claim documents of the buffalo from the OP No. 2, but he refused to deliver the same by saying that he will not sent any report to the insurance company in this regard. It is further alleged that the complainant has made a complaint dated 16.1.2016 to the Deputy Direction, District Animal and Dairy department, Bhiwani and also made complaint on CM window on 19.1.2016, but to no effect. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such, complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
2. On appearance, the OP No. 1 has filed its contested written statement alleging therein that the insurance policy produced by the complainant is for the period from 10.2.2016 to 9.2019, whereas buffalo of the complainant was died on 16.1.2016, as such the complaint deserves dismissal on this ground alone. It is further alleged that the buffalo in question was not insured with the answering OP on 16.1.2016. It is further alleged that the complainant has never lodged any claim in respect of the death of alleged buffalo. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. OP No. 2, on appearance filed his separate written statement denying all the allegations of the complainant. It is alleged by OP No. 2 that he has no concern or connection the claim in dispute. It is further alleged that the answering OP has only signed the Health-cum- Evaluation Certificate for the purpose of insurance, but he is not liable for any liability of compensation. It is further alleged that the said certificate also bears the signature of beneficiary. It is further alleged that after the death of buffalo, no post mortem was got done by the complainant. It is further alleged that the complainant has also not taken any policy from the insurance company, in that situation, the complainant is not entitled to any relief. It is further alleged that at the time of issuance of Health-cum-Evaluation Certificate, the buffalo was good in health and then she died for the one reason or the other in the delivery is out of knowledge. It is further alleged that if complainant has taken any policy from the OP No. 1, he could have called the surveyor on the spot, which shows that complainant had not taken the insurance policy and i.e. why OP No. 2 has not been called by the surveyor to conduct the Post mortem report. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed on record the documents Annexure C1 to C26 in evidence and closed the evidence.
5. Ld. Counsel for the OP No. 1 has placed on record documents as Annexure RW1/A and Annexure R1 & closed the evidence. No evidence placed on record by the OP No. 2 despite availing several opportunities and the evidence of the OP No. 2 was closed by court order dated 15.3.2019.
6. We have heard both the parties at length and have gone through the case file carefully.
7. Ld. counsel for the OP No.1 has placed his reliance upon case titled as Reliance Gen. Ins. Vs Ram Awadh Singh, RP No. 3957 of 2017, decided on 16.4.2018 by the Hon’ble National Commission and case titled as Sarla Jain Vs UIIC, RP No. 3430 of 2013, decided on 4.9.2014 by the Hon’ble National Commission.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and having gone through the material available on the records, we are of the considered view that complaint of the complainant deserves acceptance only against OP No.2. There are some facts which are admitted by both the parties. It is admitted that fact that the OP No. 2 has issued Health cum Evaluation Certificate of two buffaloes of complainant on 2.1.2016. It is also admitted fact that out of these two buffaloes, one buffalo of the complainant died on 16.1.2016. It is also admitted fact that insurance of the buffaloes was issued on 10.2.2016. So, in our view the OP No. 1 cannot be held liable to pay the insured amount of buffalo to complainant, because on the date of death of buffalo there was no insurance policy in existence. Now, the question arises whether the OP No. 2 is liable for non-issuance of the insurance of the buffaloes of the complainant? The sought answer is “yes”, because from the perusal of Annexure C6, report submitted by the Deputy Director, Intensive Cattle Development Project, Bhiwani to the Director, Animal Husbandry & Dairying Department, Haryana Panchkula, in which it has been written in third line that “the doctor has given required fee and other documents to the insurance agent”. So, from the perusal of report Annexure C6, it is clearly established on record the OP No. 2 has acted as an insurance agent and has taken the premium amount from the complainant, but he failed in getting issuing the insurance policy for the buffaloes of the complainant well in time and in the mean time one of the buffalo fell ill and died on 16.1.2016. Moreover, from the perusal of insurance policy Annexure R1, it transpires that the same has been got issued by the Deputy Director, Intensive Cattle Development Project, Bhiwani and in the column of address the name of the complainant has been given by the insurance company. In our view, the insurance policy has been got issued by the OP No. 2 due to fact that the complainant has moved various complaints before different authorities against the OP No. 2. From the perusal of Annexure C4, Health cum Evaluation Certificate dated 2.1.2016 issued by the OP No. 2, it is clear that the OP No.2 has mentioned the Tag Nos. and cost of buffaloes as Rs.50,000/- each of buffalo, which also shows that the OP No. 2 has acted as an agent of the insurance company, which is not his duty.
9. But the complainant has failed to produce any documentary evidence against OP No. 1 insurance company. So, the complaint qua OP No. 1 is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. But the complainant has placed on record sufficient documentary evidence against OP No.2 to prove his case beyond doubt. On the other hand, the OP No. 2 has failed to place on record some cogent and convincing documentary evidence to rebut the case of the complainant.
9. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed against OP No.2 and the OP No. 2 is directed to: -
i. To Pay Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand only) as cost of his buffalo alongwith interest @ 12% from the date of filing this complaint till its realization.
ii. To pay Rs.5000/- (Five thousand only) as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment & hardship, due to deficiency in service on the part of OP No. 2 as well as counsel fee & 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 No. 2 shall liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on total amount as directed above vide clause No. i to ii from the date of default i.e. after 30 days from the date of this order i.e. 3.6.2019. 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: 03.06.2019.
(Saroj Bala Bohra) (Parmod Kumar) (Manjit Singh Naryal)
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
