Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 73
Instituted on : 15.02.2019
Decided on : 22.07.2024
Sukhwant age 47 years, son of Ram Chander resident of village Bhalaut Tehsil and District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Rohtak through its Divisional Manager.
- Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.Sonepat through its Divisional Manager.
..…….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Ms. ShilpaKundu, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.R.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant are that he was having a buffalo of Murrah breed, black colour and having good health. He got insured his buffalo with the respondent on 20.01.2017. Earlier the tag number of the buffalo was HLDB 15/650840 but after that the buffalo was tagged with new number as 160017/998820 because the old tag number of the buffalo was dropped. On 10.09.2018 complainant’s buffalo died because of fever. Post mortem of the buffalo was conducted and the opposite party No.2 was informed immediately. The complainant lodged the claim and submitted all the documents in the office of opposite parties. But despite his repeated requests, opposite parties have not disbursed the genuine claim of the complainant. Opposite party has finally on 05.02.2019 has refused to pay any heed to the request of the complainant. 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 claim amount of Rs.100000/- i.e. Rs.85000/- as value of the buffalo and Rs.15000/- for causing unnecessary harassment and litigation expenses etc. to the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of filing the complaint till realisation.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in preliminary objections of their reply has submitted that the said buffalo was not insured with the insurance company. The cover note is false, no premium of insurance policy was deposited by the complainant in the insurance company. Therefore no insurance policy was issued of the said dead buffalo. The health certificate supplied by the complainant also does not tally with the PMR. In health certificate the market price of the buffalo is given as Rs.60000/- but the complainant is demanding Rs.85000/-, other particulars of the dead buffalo also does not tally with the health certificate and the PMR. Thus the dead buffalo is not the same of which the health certificate was issued. The Tag number of the dead buffalo does not tally with the false cover-note produced by the complainant. On merits it is submitted that the dead buffalo was not insured with the opposite party. 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, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed his evidence on dated 14.02.2020. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite parties has placed on record affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 and closed his evidence on 08.02.2022.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material of the case very carefully.
5. As per the written statement filed by the respondent no insurance policy of the dead buffalo was issued by the company. It has been submitted that the tag number of the dead buffalo does not tally with the cover note or policy. The health certificate supplied by the complainant also does not tally with PMR. Moreover it has been submitted that the market price of the buffalo has been wrongly demanded as Rs.85000/- whereas as per health certificate the market price of the buffalo was given as Rs.60000/-. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. As per our opinion in fact initially tag number HLDB 15/650840 was issued by the respondent insurance company regarding the buffalo of Sukhwant having the insured value as Rs.60000/- on dated 20.01.2017 and the same has been proved through cover note Ex.C5/Ex.R4. After that the tag of the buffalo was misplaced and the new tag was issued and the same has been inserted by the Veterinary Surgeon, GVH, Bhalout on 10.09.2018. The concerned doctor informed the insurance company regarding this fact through the copy of letter placed on record by the complainant as Ex.C3. This fact is also proved through the document placed on record by the respondent itself as Ex.R5. The perusal of health certificate cum-valuation certificate placed on record by the respondent as Ex.R5 itself shows that the buffalo of complainant was retagged with tag number 160017/998820. The new tag number has also been mentioned on the post mortem report which has been placed on record as Ex.C2 by the complainant. Hence from the documents placed on record it is proved that the buffalo of complainant which was insured by the respondent insurance company with tag number HLDB15/650840 was retagged with tag number 160017/998820 on dated 02.05.2017 and the alleged buffalo died on 10.09.2018. Hence the plea taken by the opposite party that the buffalo of complainant was not insured with the opposite party is wrong and the opposite party is liable to pay the claim amount of Rs.60000/- to the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.60000/-(Rupees sixty thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 15.02.2019 till its realization and shall also pay 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:
22.07.2024.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
…………………………………
Vijender Singh, Member
