Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressed Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 121
Instituted on : 16.03.2018.
Decided on : 18.10.2021.
Puranmal s/o Sh. Chotu Ram R/o VPO Makrauli Kalan, Tehsil & District Rohtak..
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., through its Director, Manager, Divisional Manager, C/o Orient House, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002.
- The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Regional office-2nd floor, Jeevan Jyoti Building, Jagadhari Road, Ambala Cantt. 133001 through its Regional manager.
- The Oriental Insurance Company Limited through its Divisional Manager, Office 204-R, Model Town, Atlas Road, Sonipat.
- The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Jawahar Market Rohtak. Opposite Model Town, D.Park, Rohtak through its Divisional Manager, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Dinesh Singla, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.R.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant got insured his buffalo with the respondent for the period from 17.02.2017 to 16.02.2018. The respondent company before insuring the cattle(Buffalo) duly checked up the health and other thing regarding the cattle and issued a health cum valuation certificate bearing serial no.29454 dated 14.02.2017 and the value of buffalo was assessed Rs.50000/- and pierced the tag/burki no.1600130-890502 in the ear of buffalo. On 13.08.2017 the son of complainant took three cattle i.e. two buffalos and one calf to village pond to get the cattle bath & grazed grass. While cattle are grazing, one buffalo and one calf was found missing at about 7 P.M. by the complainant son. The son of complainant tried to search the missing cattle but failed to find the both. In the next morning the complainant found that a mudslide happened on the bank of village’s pond and both the cattle i.e. buffalo and calf have died. The insurance company and Veterinary officer were duly informed. But the Veterinary officer denied to conduct postmortem of said buffalo on the ground that as per their record, buffalo was not insured. On the other hand, the surveyor of the company reached at the spot and stated that the buffalo is duly insured. He took some photograph, made the necessary enquiry and prepared complete report and asked the complainant and his family to de-attach the tag from the ear of the deceased buffalo as the complainant was required to attach the tag with the application for claiming the insurance amount of buffalo to which tag has been de-attach. Complainant approached the respondent company and requested them to provide the insured amount of Rs.50000/- but despite his repeated requests, opposite parties have refused to pay the genuine claim of the complainant. Hence, this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay the claim amount of Rs.50000/- alongwith interest, 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 in their reply has submitted that as per the statement of Latif s/o Puranmal his younger brother went to the pond with the buffalo and her calf. After drinking water the buffalo and her calf were not found. Thus there is a violation of terms and conditions of the policy. In missing of animals the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. No PMR was conducted by the doctors of the veterinary hospital. Thus without PMR we cannot say that which of the buffalo died or not, and the particulars of dead buffalo matched with the health certificate or not. Thus without comparing PMR and health certificate we cannot say which of the buffalo died. Thus the claim is not maintainable. When the company surveyor reached on the spot, the buffalo was buried. Thus no investigation was conducted by the surveyor to confirm the genuineness of the buffalo. On merits it is submitted that buffalo serial no.1070147 was not insured with the respondent. It is also denied that the complainant informed the veterinary officer for conducting the PMR of dead buffalo and also informed the insurance company. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A & Ex.CW2/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C15 and closed his evidence on dated 24.04.2019. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party has placed on record affidavit Ex.RW1/A & Ex.RW1/B, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed his evidence on 09.09.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case, the claim of the complainant regarding the insured buffalo has not been paid by the opposite parties on the ground that No PMR of insured buffalo was conducted by the doctors of the veterinary hospital. Thus without PMR we cannot say that which of the buffalo died or not, and without comparing PMR and health certificate we cannot say which of the buffalo died. In this regard it is observed that as per cover note Ex.C4, the buffalo of complainant having tag no.890502 was insured with the opposite parties for a sum of Rs.50000/-. As per photograph Ex.C6, the alleged tag bearing no.890502 is attached with the ear of the buffalo. The complainant has moved an application under RTI before the office of the Veterinary Hospital Makraukli Kalan placed on record as Ex.C10, whereby the complainant has sought the information regarding record maintained in their office for the insurance of his buffalo bearing tag no.890502 for the sum of Rs.50000/- for the period 17.02.2017 to 16.02.2018 and the same has been confirmed by the Veterinary Surgeon Govt. Vet. Hospital Makrauli Kalan, Rohtak vide their reply Ex.C12.
7. Hence from the documents placed on record it is established that the buffalo of complainant having tag no.890502 for the period 17.02.2017 to 16.02.2018 was insured with the opposite parties for a sum of Rs.50000/- and from the photographs of dead buffalo having tag no.890502 in her ear, it is proved that the insured buffalo had died. It is also an admitted fact that the respondents appointed an investigator to investigate the matter. Sh. Manu Malik investigator submitted his report with the insurance company on dated 14.05.2018. During his investigation, the investigator recorded the statement of Mr. Latif s/o Sh. Puran Mal(insured) and one Narender Kumar Panch, resident of village Makroli. Both the persons submitted that the buffalo alongwith a calf died and tag no.160013-890502 was in the ear of dead buffalo and same was removed from the ear of dead buffalo. Meaning thereby in the investigation it came into the notice of the insurance company that the buffalo having tag no.160013-890502 was died. The alleged tag no.160013-890502 which was detached from the ear of the buffalo after her death is also placed on record Ex.C2. But despite all the evidence placed on record by the complainant, claim has not been settled by the opposite parties which show deficiency in service on their part. Hence opposite parties are liable to pay the insured amount to the complainant. The law cited by ld. Counsel for the complainant i.e. judgment dated 02.11.2017 in first appeal no.241/2013 of Hon’ble State Commission, Dehradun titled as The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Satyabhama etc., and judgment dated 13.04.2011 of Hon’ble State commission, Dehradun in case titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Ujla Devi are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. In view of the above, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.50000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 16.03.2018 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
8. 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:
18.10.2021.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
...............................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
