Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 424.
Instituted on : 25.07.2017.
Decided on : 29.07.2019
Rajbir age 42 years, s/o Sh. Dalip R/o VPO-Bhali Anandpur, Teh. & Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- The Regional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., R-204, Model Town, Sonepat(Haryana).
- The Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., D.Park, Rohtak.
……….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.Rinku Jangra, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. A.S.Malik, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant got insured his three buffalos with the respondent on dated 08.11.2016. That one of the buffalo had died on dated 20.04.2017 and complainant duly intimated the opposite party about the death of insured buffalo. PMR of the buffalo was conducted by the Veterinary Surgeon I/c, G.V.H.Dobh, Rohtak and the complainant submitted his claim before the opposite party. But despite his repeated requests, opposite parties have not disbursed 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 the complaint is pre-mature and under process in settling the claim. After many request by the OPs, the complainant has not cleared the query i.e. in policy and proposal form, the insured name was mentioned as Rajbir s/o Duli Chand, whereas in investigation report, the name of insured was mentioned as Rajbir s/o Dalip. That as per report of investigator, the dead buffalo was not at the premises of the insured, at the time of the inspection of the spot on 21.04.2017 and was not the same, which was insured with the O.P.No.1. So, claim is not maintainable as per terms and conditions of the policy. On merits, it is submitted that 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.C8 and the evidence of complainant was closed by the order dated 05.02.2019 of this Forum. On the other hand ld. counsel for the OP tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 and closed his evidence on 05.07.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material of the case very carefully.
5. The main contention of the respondent company is that in policy and proposal form, the insured name was mentioned as Rajbir s/o Duli Chand, whereas in investigation report, the name of insured was mentioned as Rajbir s/o Dalip. The perusal of Ex.C1 itself shows that the veterinary doctor after due verification, wrote a letter to the insurance company regarding the fact that: “Three buffalos bearing tag no.16004/368893, 160017/894796 and 160017/894741 insured with policy no.1069598, belongs to Rajbir s/o Dalip. But mistakenly instead of father’s name Sh.Dalip, it was written as Duli Chand. So it is certified that these 3 buffalos belongs to Mr. Rajbir”. Meaning thereby, the doctor has verified the contents because he is a gazette officer and after verifying the contents from the concerned person, he moved an application to the insurance company for rectifying the father’s name of complainant. An affidavit to this effect has also been placed on record by the complainant as Ex.C2. Hence from the documents placed on record by the complainant, it is established that the buffalo of the complainant having tag no.160017/894796 had died and as per document Ex.C4, the value of buffalo was Rs.50000/-.
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. 25.07.2017 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.
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:
29.07.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
