Haryana

StateCommission

A/333/2016

VIRSA SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

JITENDER SHARMA

20 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                First Appeal No.           333 of 2016       

                                                Date of Institution:       18.04.2016

                                                Date of Decision:                  20.09.2016

 

Virsa Singh son of Shri Sabeg Singh, resident of Village Gangheri, District Kurukshetra.

…Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Sabharwal Market, Railway Road, Kurukshetra, through its Branch Manager.

…Respondent-Opposite Party

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                   Mr. B. M. Bedi, Judicial Member.
                   Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. Rakesh Nuniwal, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr. D.C. Kumar, Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                      O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J. (ORAL)

 

Virsa Singh-complainant is in appeal against the order dated January 18^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (for short District Forum) whereby complaint filed by him was dismissed.

2.      The complainant got his cow insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited (for short, ‘Insurance Company’) for Rs.50,000/-, vide Policy Schedule Livestock (Cattle) Insurance (Exhibit R-3), from July 15^th, 2013 to July 14^th, 2014. On May 25^th, 2014, the cow died. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dated October 13^th, 2014 on the ground that tag was not found in the ear of the dead cow. Aggrieved thereof, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.      Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that the dead cow was not insured with the Insurance Company, which was factually wrong.  To support the contention, reliance has been placed upon postmortem examination report (Exhibit CW1/D) and Policy Schedule Livestock (Cattle) Insurance (Exhibit R-3). 

4.      On the other hand learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that the tag was the basic condition of the Insurance Policy to identify the cow. Since there was no tag in the ear of the dead cow at the time Post Mortem examination, therefore the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.

5.      In the postmortem examination report (Exhibit CW1/D) against Column Tatoo/Brand Name, Tag Number of Cow is mentioned 72434.  In the Policy Schedule Livestock (Cattle) Insurance (Exhibit R-3) in the column Ear Tag Description, same tag number, that is, 72434 is also mentioned. In view of this overwhelming evidence, it is proved that cow was insured with the Insurance Company for Rs.50,000/-.  So, the plea raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company is not tenable and is hereby repelled.  

6.      For the reasons recorded supra, the appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is allowed.  The Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Insured Declared Value of Cow) alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim form till its realization. The Insurance Company is also directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation to the complainant.  The Insurance Company is further directed to comply with the direction within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

 

Announced 20.09.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK