Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 82.
Instituted on : 20.02.2018.
Decided on : 04.11.2020.
Krishna Wanti aged about 70 years w/o Late Sh. Gobind Lal R/o H.No.5958 Aadarsh Nagar, Rohtak, District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. having its registered office at Oriental House, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002, trough its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.
- The Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company, 2nd Floor LIC Building, Jagadhari Road, Ambala Cantt.133001.
- The Sr. Div. Manager, Oriental Insurance Company, 204-R, Modal Town, Subhash Chonk, Atlas Road, Sonipat-131001.
- The Deputy General Manager, Oriental Insurance Company, 204-R, Model Town, Subhash Chowk, Atlas Road, Sonipat-131001.
- Dy. Director, A & H, Sukhpura Chowk, Rohtak-124001.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS.TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Mukesh Deswal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh.Sandeep Raj, Advocate for opposite party No.1 to 4.
Sh.Narender Dahiya, Veterinary Surgeon for opposite party No.5.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant got his two buffalos and one cow insured under the scheme of opposite party, vide cover note no.1069798 through opposite party No.5. The buffaloes were insured for a sum of Rs.60000/- each and the cow was insured for an amount of Rs.40000/-. Out of the aforesaid cattle of the complainant, one buffalo which was of mixed murrah breed, insured against tag no.160018/173165 fell ill in the month of May 2017 and was treated by the veterinary surgeon for a period of 20.05.2017 to 28.06.2017. On 29.06.2017 alleged buffalo died and the concerned veterinary surgeon was intimated about the same. As per the post mortem report, the buffalo died due to endotoxaemic shock on account of prolonged recumbency due to arthritis. The veterinary surgeon in his valuation certificate has assessed the value of the buffalo at Rs.60000/-. Complainant submitted all the required documents with the insurance company for settlement of her claim but the insurance company did not respond and thus on 10.11.2017 complainant moved a complaint to the CM window and the Sonipat police called the complainant and she was got some papers signed without knowing the contents of the papers as she is an illiterate lady. On 21.11.2017, she received a sum of Rs.20000/- from the insurance company through NEFT, which was transferred in her account as final settlement amount. The complainant received the alleged amount under protest. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the remaining amount of insurance claim alongwith compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties No.1 to 4 in their reply has submitted that answering opposite partied deputed the investigator Mr. Mannu Malik who investigated the case. The investigator had made its report after verifying all details of S.Report, Post Mortem report, health certificate of death of buffalo and recommended the claim as genuine and assessed the loss of Rs.20000/- as per current status & current market value. As per investigator report on dated 21.011.2017 the answering opposite parties transferred the amount of Rs.20000/- through NEFT in the account of complainant. The complainant voluntarily received the amount of Rs.20000/- as full and final settlement claim amount. It is incorrect that the complainant received Rs,20000/- under protest. The valuation certificate was prepared by the Veterinary Surgeon in collusion with the complainant and assessed the value of buffalo at Rs.60000/-. The complainant has voluntarily received the amount of Rs.20000/- as full and final settlement claim amount. Therefore, the complainant has stopped from claiming any further amount from answering opposite parties in respect of claim in question. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and has closed his evidence on dated 10.01.2019. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R8 and closed his evidence on dated 26.04.20219.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. As per the complainant, he has received Rs.20000/- against the claim amount of Rs.60000/-. We have perused the report of investigator Ex.R1 in which surveyor/investigator has assessed that the claim is genuine one and value of the buffalo is Rs.60000/-. As per Ex.R2, a note has been prepared by the insurance company and an advise has been made that the claim is genuine for Rs.20000/- and the same be paid to the insured but no any reason has been made in this note. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party has argued that the current market value of the buffalo is Rs.20000/- and as such the same was paid to the complainant, which she has received voluntarily and she has stopped from claiming any further amount. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party has also placed reliance upon the ratio of law laid-down in case titled as Rohtas & Anr. Vs. UIIC decided on 01.11.2017 by Hon’ble National commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.400 of 2011, order dated 07.11.2017 of Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi in revision petition no.2223 of 2015 titled as Ashok Kumar Vs. New India and 2019(1)CLT 384 titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Kiran Collection & Boutique. On the other hand, contention of ld. Counsel for the complainant is that the buffalo was insured for Rs.60000/- and the as per valuation certificate Ex.C4 also, the Veterinary surgeon has assessed the value of buffalo as Rs.60000/- but the opposite party has only paid the amount of Rs.20000/- without any basis. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has also placed reliance upon the law cited in 2011(3)CPJ titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanhuram & Anr., whereby Hon’ble State Commission, Raipur has held that : “Report of Veterinary Assistant surgeon inspires more confidence than report of investigator of Insurance Company-District forum rightly believed that report” and also placed reliance upon the law cited in 2009(3)CLT 201: 2008 R.C.R.(Civil)386 titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kameshwar Lal. The aforesaid law cited by ld. Cousel for the complainant are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case and opposite party is liable to pay the claim as per the valuation made by Veterinary Surgeon. The veterinary surgeon assessed the value of buffalo as Rs.60000/-. The opposite party has wrongly deducted an amount of Rs.40000/- without any reason and cause. Hence the complainant is entitled for the remaining amount of Rs.40000/-.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to 4 to pay the amount of Rs.40000/-(Rupees forty thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complainant i.e. 20.02.2018 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. 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:
04.11.2020.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
…………………………………..
Tripti Pannu, Member.
