Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 469.
Instituted on : 16.08.2017.
Decided on : 22.04.2019.
Balraj son of Sh. Om Parkash, age 41 years, Resident of 692/21, Kalish Conoly, Rohtak. ………..Complainant.
Vs.
1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited through its Incharge/Manager, Oriental House, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002.
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited through its Regional Manager, LIC Building IInd floor, Jagadhari Road, Ambala Cantt. 133001.
3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited thorugh its Branch Manager, Division Office, R-204, Model Town, Sonipat-131001.
4. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager, Shyam Complex, Bahadurgarh-124507.
5. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager, Near D-Park, Model Town, Delhi Road, Rohtak-124001.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Vivek Chaudhary, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. DS Chauhan, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is a consumer of respondents and in the month of Nov/Dec. 2016 Haryana State Govt. in collaboration with the respondents had announced an Insurance Policy of LIVESTOCK (CATTLE) in Haryana State. According to this policy, the owner of the Livestock (Cattle) should pay Rs.100/- as insurance premium and remaining insurance premium has been paid by the Haryana State Government. That the complainant had purchased livestock (cattle) policy of his four buffalos at District Rohtak on dated 09.12.2016 vide policy No. 1069927 for the period of one year and had paid Rs.100/- to the agent of respondent No. 5 at Rohtak and remaining policy amount paid by the Haryana Govt. That at the time of insurance of four buffalos of the complainant, on dated 06.12.2016, respondents No. 4 and 5 had conducted the medical examination of four buffalos by the registered government veterinary doctors at Rohtak and issued the Health Evaluation Certificate of the said four buffalos and affixed the tag bearing no.160018/17474004 in the right ears of the said four buffalos. Moreover, respondent No. 3 had affixed the sum insured value (Market Value) of one buffalo as Rs. 60,000/-. After that opposite party No. 3 had issued the livestock (cattle) policy to the complainant. That on 13.12.2016 at about 09.30 a.m., one buffalo of the complainant has been died due to trypanosomiasis and it is a natural death. After that the complainant immediately informed to the opposite party No. 5 on time regarding the same. On 14.12.2016, the officials of the opposite party No. 5 had conducted postmortem of the deceased buffalo by Government Veterinary Doctor. That on 14.12.2016, the complainant had visited the office of opposite party No. 5 and requested for the claim of his deceased buffalo under livestock (cattle), and again on 16.12.2016, complainant had visited the office of OP No. 3 and filled livestock claim form and fulfill all the formalities regarding livestock claim, but officials of opposite party No. 3 did not pay any heed. It is further alleged that the claim had already been passed by the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and opposite party no. 3 had ignored the claim. That on 22.07.2017, a legal notice was sent through registered post to the opposite parties, but all in vain. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.60,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum till its realization and Rs. 30,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5500/- as litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that as per report of investigator, the alleged buffalo died on 13.12.2016 and insured on 09.12.2016 which clearly shows that ailing buffalo was got insured with a view to fetch false claim as such claim is liable to be repudiated. So after going through investigator report that tag was inserted after the death of buffalo hence the claim of the complainant was repudiated as “No Claim”. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A and Ex.CW3/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and has closed his evidence on dated 05.09.2018. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and has closed his evidence on dated 28.01.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. The main objection in the written statement by the opposite party is that the alleged buffalo was insured from respondent no.4 from Bahadurgarh, so in view of the citation 2009(6) law Herald SC page 3532 Sonic Surgical Vs. NIC Ltd., this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. After perusal of all the relevant documents it is observed that the buffalo died in Kailash Colony, Rohtak and post mortem was also conducted in the territorial jurisdiction of the present Forum. Hence this objection is turned down and this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.
6. The next contention of the opposite party is that after considering the investigation report which was prepared by one of the Investigator Sh.Manu Malik, “Loss was caused on 13.12.2016 whereas the insurance period of the policy was commenced from 09.12.2016, which clearly shows that an ailing buffalo was got insured only with a view to fetch a false claim and as such, the claim of the insured is liable to be repudiated”. We have perused all the documents placed on record by the parties. The health certificate regarding the buffalo of complainant was initially issued by the Veterinary Doctor on dated 09.12.2016 which is placed on record as Ex.C7. As per post mortem report placed on record Ex.C11, the buffalo died on dated 13.12.2016 at 9:30 P.M. and the post mortem was conducted by the Veterinary Surgeon on 14.12.2016. The complainant submitted his claim form and valuation certificate with the insurance company on dated 16.12.2016 in which the detail regarding the buffalo has been mentioned. As per this document Ex.C9 and Ex.C10 the cost of buffalo is Rs.60000/-.
7. In the present case, the opposite parties have failed to prove that the buffalo was already suffering from any disease at the time of insurance and this fact has not been mentioned anywhere in the investigation report or in the post mortem report issued by the concerned Veterinary Surgeon. Moreover the Veterinary Surgeon had issued a certificate which is health cum valuation certificate regarding the buffalo on 09.12.2016 which is Ex.C8. This document itself proves that the buffalo was hale and hearty on 09.12.2016. Hence the claim has been repudiated on false and flimsy grounds.
8. In view of the above, complaint is allowed and opposite parties are hereby directed to pay the cost of buffalo i.e. Rs.60000/-(Rupees sixty thousand only) as mentioned in documents Ex.C9 and Ex.C10 alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 16.08.2017 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
22.04.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………
Ved Pal, Member.
………………………………..
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
