Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 239.

                                                          Instituted on     : 4.6.2018.

                                                          Decided on       : 16.12.2020.

Rajender Singh son of Shri Chhotte Lal, resident of Rohtash Nagar, near Bhom Akhara, Rohtak.

                                                          ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Office at Model Town, Delhi-Rohtak Road, Rohtak, through its Divisional Manager.

……….Opposite party.

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. Paramjeet Duggal, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. A.S. Malik, Advocate for opposite party.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the case are that the complainant was owner of cow and got insured his cow with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., vide TAG No.160018/172743 for the sum insured Rs.40,000/-. During the period of insurance, said cow has died on 3.11.2017 and post mortem was conducted by the Veterinary Surgeon, Rohtak. Complainant intimated about the death of his insured cow complete in all respect alongwith all required documents to respondent within time and submitted his claim form with the opposite party, which was acknowledged by opposite party. After acknowledging the claim, respondent is pressurizing in arbitrary manner to the complainant to receive less amount of claim in place of full amount of claim as per insured value of Rs.40,000/-. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of respondent. The complainant also served the legal notice vide registered post on 19.3.2018, through his counsel and also served reminder legal notice dated 1.5.2018 but respondent did not bother to reply. As such it is averred that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount under the said policy amounting Rs.40,000/- alongwith all other accrued benefits therein alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. to the complainant and also  to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation  and Rs.11,000/- as counsel fee to the complainant.

2.                After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that the said cow was insured w.e.f.21.12.2016 to 20.12.2017 with the company for sum insured Rs.40,000/- and the said cow was died on 3.11.2017 at the age of 8½ years. As per P.M.R., the market value of cow was Rs.20,000/- at the time of death and competent authority has recommended the claim amount to the tune of Rs.20,000/-. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.                Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1/B to Ex.C1/F and has closed his evidence on dated 2.12.2019. Ld. counsel for the OP has tendered affidavit Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R4 and has closed his evidence on dated 24.1.2020.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the contention of the opposite party is that as per P.M.R., the market value of cow was Rs.20000/- at the time of death and as such opposite party is ready to pay Rs.20000/- to the complainant. On the other hand, complainant has demanded the insured amount of Rs.40000/-. In this regard, it is observed that as per copy of PMR placed on record by the complainant as Ex.C1/C, it has not been mentioned anywhere that at the time of death, the  value of the cow was Rs.20000/-. As per investigation report Ex.R3, the sum insured is Rs.40000/- and the investigator has recommended the claim as genuine. Neither from the PMR nor from the investigation report, it is proved that the market value of the cow was Rs.20000/-. Hence a wrong plea has been taken by the opposite party which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. As such opposite party is liable to pay the insured amount to the complainant.

6.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.40000/-(Rupees forty thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 04.06.2018 till its realiSation 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:

16.12.2020.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                                        ……………………………….

                                                                        Renu Chaudhary, Member.

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Tripti Pannu, Member.