Haryana

Karnal

CC/290/2015

Jaspreet Singh S/o Kulwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Samrat Kumar

03 May 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                               Complaint No.290 of 2015

                                                             Date of instt.: 26.11.2015

                                                               Date of decision:3.5.2017

 

Jaspreet Singh son of Shri Kulwinder Singh resident of village Dungra, Tehsil Indri District Karnal.

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

Oriental Insurance Company, through its Branch Manager, Karnal.

 

                                                                                         ……… Opposite Party.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

Ms. Veena Rani….Member

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

                            

Present:-     Shri Samrat Kumar  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri Saroj Bala Advocate for opposite party.

                                       

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he got insured his cow, aged about seven years, with opposite party under Cattle Insurance Policy and cover note was duly issued by opposite party in that regard. The cow was insured for an amount of Rs.30,000/-. At the time of issuance of the policy, cow was healthy and duly examined by Veterinary Surgeon, who issued Health cum Evaluation Certificate. However, the insured cow died on 21.7.2014. Post Mortem of the dead cow was conducted by Veterinary Surgeon Indri. Thereafter, he reported the death of the cow to the opposite party. Representative of opposite party visited the site for verification. Claim was lodged with the opposite party, but the opposite party did not settle his claim despite legal notice. Such conduct of the opposite party amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, due to which he suffered physical and mental harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite party, who appeared and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint and that the complaint is not maintainable.

                   On merits, factum of issuing insurance of the cow of the complainant has been admitted. It has been submitted that as per health certificate tag was inserted in the ear of the insured, but condition of the tag was brand new as per chemical report of Shri Ram Dhan Babbar dated 13.10.2014, as the tag was free from any dust/mud signs or any other foreign material like hair etc. It seemed that the complainant had removed tag of the insured cow with the intention that in case any other cow would die, then to get claim for the same. Moreover, it appeared that either the tag was inserted in the ear of the cow when she fell ill or after the death. Thus, the claim of the complainant was of “No Tag No Claim”. Therefore, the same was rejected on the ground of mis-representation of facts and letter dated 5.12.2014 was sent to the complainant in that regard. Moreover, the complainant had not got treated his cow from any Veterinary Doctor, rather his father treated the same and gave injection. Thus, the complainant was negligent in treatment of the cow, which was against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.26 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite party, affidavit of Rajinder Singh Behlan Ex.OPW1/A, affidavit of R.N. Sharma Ex.OPW2/B, affidavit of OPW3/C and documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP6 have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                Admittedly, the cow of the complainant was insured by opposite party for Rs.30,000/- and the same died during subsistence of the insurance policy. Before issuance of the policy, the cow was medically examined by Veterinary Surgeon of Government Veterinary Hospital Indri and Health Certificate, the copy of which is Ex.C3, was issued.  Age, species, breed, number of lactation, identification marks and market price of the same were also mentioned in the said health certificate. After the death, postmortem on the dead cow was conducted by Veterinary Surgeon Indri and the copy of the same is Ex.C5. Tatu/brand number of the deceased cow was mentioned as OIC/76905.

7.                Learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently argued that after receiving the claim from the complainant, Shri R.N. Sharma was appointed as investigator, who visited the spot, inspected the dead body of the deceased cow and submitted report, the copy of which is Ex.OP3. As per his report the cow was ill for the last 10 days and it was treated by the father of the complainant, who had also given injection to the cow and as such there was negligence on the part of the complainant by not getting treated the cow from Veterinary Surgeon. Thereafter, Ram Dhan Babbar examined the tag taken out the ear of the deceased cow and submitted report Ex.O5, according to which the ear tag looked like new one and was not used for the ear of the cow. It has further been argued that the tag was fixed in the ear of the cow when the same became ill or after death and as such the complainant mis-represented the facts. Moreover, the complainant was negligent in not getting treated the cow from Veterinary Doctor. It has lastly been argued that in view of the aforesaid circumstances the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated.

8.                It is worth pointing out at the very outset that tag in the ear of the cow must have been fixed by the opposite party at the time of insuring the same. If, the plea of the opposite party is accepted that the tag was fixed after the cow became ill or after death of the same, then it is the opposite party, who failed in its bounden duty to fix the tag in the ear of the cow at the time of insurance.  The tag could not be given to the complainant and the same must affixed in the ear of the cow. Had the tag been removed by the complainant, then certainly there must be some signs on the ear of the cow regarding removal of the tag and reaffixing the same after the cow became ill or after death but neither it has been alleged nor there is any evidence that there was any sign of removal of the tag and reaffixing the same.

9.                The cow was medically examined by Veterinary Surgeon before insurance and Health Certificate was issued. Postmortem was also conducted by the Veterinary Surgeon on the dead body of the cow. The identification marks and other descriptions of the insured cow as mentioned in the Health Certificate tallied with the identification marks and descriptions at the time of conducting postmortem. Even the investigator of the opposite party in his report Ex.OP3 clarified that descriptions of the dead cow tallied with the health certificate. Under such circumstances, it stands establish that the same cow of the complainant, which was insured by the opposite party, had died. Therefore, the report of Ram Dhan Babbar that tag looked like new one and was not used in the ear of the cattle, does not render any help to the opposite party and the fact remains that the insured cow had died and the tag fixed by the opposite party in the ear of the cow at the time of insurance was found intact at the time of postmortem. Under such circumstances, we have no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the complainant and repudiation of his claim by the opposite party merely on the ground that the tag found in the ear of the dead cow looked like new one, was not legally justified.

10.              The copy of the order of repudiation of the claim Ex.OP2 shows that the claim was repudiated only on the ground that the tag found in the ear  looked like new one and not used in the ear. The claim was not repudiated on the ground that the complainant had not got treated his cow from Veterinary Doctor. Moreover, mere fact that the father of the complainant had treated the cow and the same was not got treated from Veterinary Surgeon cannot be a justified ground to repudiate the claim. Generally, in villages the person who rear cattle may not get the services of Veterinary Surgeon all the times and with the passage of time they became so experienced that in the absence of Veterinary Surgeon they may give treatment to their cattle at their own. The complainant is resident of village Dungra, whereas the Veterinary Hospital is at Indri. In such a situation, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that there was any negligence on the part of the complainant in getting treated his cow and the same died due to his negligence. Under such circumstances, the plea raised by the opposite party cannot be accepted being devoid of force. It stands established that repudiation of the claim of the complainant was not legally justified. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in repudiating the claim of the complainant.

11.              As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.30,000/- as insured amount to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its realization. We further direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The party concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 3.5.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                             (Veena Rani)         (Anil Sharma)

                               Member               Member