Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 18
Instituted on : 09.01.2019
Decided on : 06.11.2023
Nareshkumar s/o Sh. Mahender Singh R/o Village Kharenti District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited R-204, Model Townonepat-131001.
- Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited Reg. Office A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002.
..…….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: Sh.BirbalSohal, 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 got insured his buffalo with the respondent for the period from 17.02.2017 to 16.02.2018 vide policy no.261600/47/2017/851 for a sum of Rs.50000/-. The alleged buffalo died on 01.06.2018 during the policy period and intimation in this regard was given to the opposite party. PMR of the buffalo was conducted by the Veterinary Surgeon on dated 28.10.2017 and the complainant submitted all the documents in the office of opposite parties and file 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 it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed 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 investigation report the dead buffalo was not the buffalo who was insured with the insurance company, because the health certificate and thedescription noted physically by the investigator were not similar tothat mentioned in the health certificate. Thus the dead buffalo was not the buffalo which was insured from the insurance company. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant did not inform the insurance company in time. PMR was not conducted by the Vety.Surgeon of the insured buffalo. Tag was freshly inserted in the ear of the dead buffalo. Therefore the claim was not payable and the insurance company rightly passed as ‘No Claim in this case. 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.CW1 to Ex.CW15 and closed his evidence on dated 13.09.2021. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party has placed on record affidavit Ex.RW1/A & Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 and closed his evidence on 15.02.2022.
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 has been repudiated by the insurance company vide its letter dated Jan. 2018 which is placed on record by the complainant as Ex.CW9. The main contention of the insurance company is that the physical description of the dead buffalo is mismatched with the insured buffalo. The insurance company placed on record 6 documents alongwith two affidavits. Ex.R1 is the policy, Ex.R2 is cattle scrutiny sheet, Ex.R3 spot verification and investigation report issued by Mannu Malik investigator. Ex.R4 is health cum evaluation certificate, Ex.R5 is post mortem report and Ex.R6 is live stock claim form cum evaluation certificate. As per the investigation report Ex.R3 the claim has been repudiated on the ground that the description mentioned in the health certificate are not similar to the dead buffalo whose description has been physically noted by the investigator and claim has been repudiated We have minutely perused health certificate Ex.R4, post mortem report Ex.R5 and Claim Form Ex.R6. We have found that the description of the buffalo are same in health certificate as well as in post mortem report as like the doctor have mentionedthe breed of buffalo Murrah, having horn curved and tail switch white below hock joint etc. The tag number 160014 is also mentioned in the post mortem report as well as in the health certificate. As per Ex.6, Live stockclaim cum valuation certificate issued by the veterinary doctor dated 27.10.2017 the description of the insured buffalo is : “Breed Murrah, horn curved, Tail while below hock joint, tag no.160014”. We have not found any strength and arguments advanced by the opposite parties. The claim has wrongly been repudiatedby the opposite parties. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite parties are liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. As per the scrutiny sheet Ex.R2 the value of the buffalo at the time of death is Rs.50000/-.
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.50000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 09.01.2019 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:
06.11.2023
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
…………………………………
Vijender Singh, Member
