BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 370 of 2011.
Date of Institution: 12.8.2011.
Date of Decision: 2.3.2015.
Rajni Devi wife of Shri Ravinder, resident of village Dadhi Bana, tehsil Charkhi Dadri, district Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Branch Office, Rohtak Road, Charkhi Dadri, Head Office Oriental House, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.
- Haryana Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Sponsored by Punjab National Bank) Office Jhojhu Kalan, tehsil Charkhi Dadri, district Bhiwani.
…...Respondents.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Sitting: Shri B.D. Yadav, President,
Shri Balraj Singh, Member,
Smt. Anita Sheoran, Member,
Present: Sh. Pardeep Bajar, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. P.K.Punia, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Respondent No.2 ex parte.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief, is that she had purchased a buffalo after obtaining a loan amounting to Rs.20,000/- and the same was insured with respondent No.1 vide cover note No.AMB 615391. It is alleged that the Buffalo of complainant died during the subsistence of insurance policy and Post Mortem of it was conducted by the Govt. Veterinary Surgeon, Gudana. It is further alleged that complainant informed the respondent regarding death of Insured Buffalo and after completion of all the formalities he submitted the claim form. The complainant further alleged that she visited the office of respondent several times to settle the claim but it did not pay any heed. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondent and as such, she had to file the present complaint.
2. On appearance, the respondent No.1 filed the written statement and contested the claim of the complainant only on the ground that deceased Buffalo of the complainant was not one which was insured with the respondent company. However, the surveyor appointed by the company had visited the spot and reported that dead Buffalo was having tag No.OIC-5485 which was never issued by the insurance company and particulars of dead Buffalo did not match with the insured Buffalo and as such the claim of the complainant was repudiated and she was informed accordingly vide letter dated 28.10.2009 so the complainant is not entitled to get any claim and the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. Despite service, respondent No.2 did not appear, hence he was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 17.4.2014
4. Both the parties filed their duly sworn affidavits in their evidence to prove their respective versions along with documents.
5. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length.
6. The ld. Counsel for the complainant contended that the claim of the complainant was wrongly closed as “No Claim” by the respondent company vide letter dated 28.10.2009, so it has no effect on the rights of the complainant, hence, she is legally entitled to claim the compensation.
6. 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 the complaint of the complainant deserves acceptance, as there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondent company. It is admitted fact that complainant was owner of a Buffalo which was insured from respondent for a sum of Rs.20,000/-. It is also admitted fact that the Buffalo of complainant died during the subsistence of insurance policy and Post Mortem was conducted by the Veterinary Surgeon, Gudana. The sole contention of learned counsel for the respondent company is that the tag of dead Buffalo did not match with that of issued at the time of proposal so the complainant is not entitled to get any claim. In our view, the plea taken by the respondent company has no substance at all because from the perusal of Ex.C5 post mortem of the buffalo conducted by the doctor the name of the owner has been clearly mentioned as Rajni Devi wife of Shri Ravinder, resident of village Dadhi Bana, tehsil Charkhi Dadri, district Bhiwani (complainant). No contrary evidence has been produced by the respondent company to disprove the above said fact, whereas it is fully proved from the post mortem report and the documents of insurance that the buffalo of the complainant died on 10.8.2009 i.e. during the subsistence of insurance policy. So, far as the difference of tag No. is concerned, the complainant had moved an application Annexure C-1 that the tag has been misplaced and the same be issued again. Vide Annexure C-2 the Veterinary Surgeon was directed to insert the new tag bearing No.5485 and the same tag was found in the ear of dead Buffalo. Therefore, it cannot be said that the dead Buffalo was not one which was insured. Hence, in these circumstances, the complaint of the complainant is allowed with costs and respondent company is directed: -
1. To pay Rs. 20,000/- along with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the date of repudiation till its realization.
2. To pay Rs. 2200/- as litigation charges.
The compliance of the order shall be made within 45 days from the date of the order. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 2.3.2015.
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anita Sheoran) (Balraj Singh)
Member. Member.
