BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:150 of 2014.
Date of Institution: 30.05.2014.
Date of Decision:01.08.2016
Devender Kumar son of Ramphal, resident of village Berla, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani through its Branch Manager.
- The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Oriental House, P.B. No. 7037, A-25/27, Aasaf Ali Road, New Delhi.
...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT.
BEFORE: Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member
Mrs. Sudesh, Member
Present:- Shri B.S. Sheoran, Advocate, for complainant.
Shri Rajbir Singh, Advocate for OPs.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he had insured his two buffalos with the OP no. 1 vide policy No. 261204/47/2013/67 dated 01.05.2012 for a period of one year for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and tagged with Tag No. HLDB-13/300675. It is alleged that on 04.01.2014 he took his above said buffalo, aged about 6 years for crossing/mating in the house of Satbir and all of sudden the buffalo of the complainant expired with a complaint of asphyxia. Thereafter postmortem was conducted by Vety. Surgeon, Badhra, District Bhiwani on 05.01.2014. It is alleged that he submitted all the documents for the claim to the Ops but the Ops have not disbursed any amount to the complainant and they have put off the matter on one pretext or the other. It is alleged that he visited to the office the Ops time and again for obtaining the claim but they did not pay any heed. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, financial loss and physical harassment. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such he had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. On appearance, the OPs filed written statement alleging therein that tag No. DB13/300675 seemed to be affixed recently in the left ear of buffalo as the condition of the tag was new at the time of spot inspection. It is submitted that the particulars of the said dead buffalo does not match as per health certificate and post mortem report such as age etc. proves that the dead buffalo is not same as the insured buffalo. It is also submitted that another buffalo was died earlier. It is submitted that there was no question to pay any claim to the complainant when neither the dead buffalo was insured with the respondent nor it belonged to the complainant. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-5 alongwith affidavit CW1.
4. In reply thereto, the counsel for opposite parties has tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-1 & Annexure R-2.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the OP wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 04.02.2014 for the death of the buffalo of the complainant.
7. Learned counsel for the Ops reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that on the receipt of the information from the complainant an investigator was deputed. He submitted his report dated 14.01.2014 Annexure R-2. As per the report of surveyor/investigator the particulars of the dead buffalo do not match with the health certificate issued at the time of the insurance of the buffalo. The tag in question which was tagged in the ear of dead buffalo was sealed to be affixed recently because the condition of the tag was new.
8. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on the file. The OP has produced the surveyor’s report Annexure R-2 but had not annexed the photographs of the dead buffalo. The counsel for the OP was directed to produce the photographs of dead buffalo which were produced by him. From the perusal of the photographs in one of the photograph the dead buffalo alongwith tag has been shown but the condition of the tag seems to be new. As per the contention of the complainant two buffalos were insured by the OP vide policy dated 01.05.2012 and the buffalo in question is stated to be died on 04.01.2014 after about more than one year and 7 months, after the lapse of long period the condition of tag in the ear of the buffalo could not remain as new, as visible in the photograph. There is also cutting for tag number in the post mortem report Annexure C-2. The complainant has wrongly mentioned in this complaint that the policy was for one year, actually the policy was for 3 years. Taking into account, each and every aspect of the case, the claim of the complainant seems not be genuine. Resultantly, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed being devoid of merits. No order as to costs. 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: 01.08.2016. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta) (Sudesh)
Member. Member.
