Haryana

Karnal

171/14

Smt. Shanti Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. G.S.Kadiyan

19 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.171 of 2014

                                                               Date of instt. 25.06.2015

                                                               Date of decision: 21.9.2015

 

Smt.Shanti Devi widow of Sh.Chanda Singh resident of village Dadupur district Karnal.

                                                                 ……….Complainant.

 

                             Versus

 

Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch office Railway Road, near main Post Office(Shabarwal Market, Kurukshetra) Kurukshetra.

                                                           ……… Opposite party.

 

                    Complaint U/s  12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma ………Member.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma…..Member.   

         

 

 Present:       Sh.G.S.Kadyan Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Rattan Sharma Advocate for the OP.

 

ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed  by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that she got insured his two cows with the Opposite Party ( in short OP) on 17.12.2013 under Animal Insurance Scheme SCSP/GOI/Strait and Rs.2107/- was paid by him vide  provisional cover note No.973441 dated 17.12.2013.  At the time of insurance, both the cows were got medically examined by the representative of the OP. The cow having tag No.OIC-76048 died on 18.3.2014 at about 10.00PM .The complainant reported the matter to the  Veterinary  Surgeon as well as OP in the morning of 19.3.2014. Post mortem on the dead body of the cow was conducted by the Veterinary Officer on the same  day at the spot and  in the presence of surveyor of the OP. Tag of the cow was found intact. The complainant submitted her claim regarding death of said cow, but the OP  repudiated the claim of the complainant on flimsy grounds.

 

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that complainant is estopped by her own acts and conduct from filing the present complaint; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and that complaint is vague and  indefinite and does not disclose any cause of action.

 

                   On merits,  insurance of the cow and death of the cow of the complainant has been admitted. It has been submitted that claim of the complainant was  rightly repudiated as  it was a case of misrepresentation and concealment regarding calvation of the cow.

 

3.                In evidence of the complainant, she tendered her affidavit Ex.CW1 and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4.

 

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the OP affidavit of Shri R.S.Balhan, Senior Divisional Manager, Ex.O/A and documents Ex.O1 to Ex.O6 have been tendered.

 

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

                  

6.                There is no dispute between the parties regarding insurance of two cows of the complainant on 17.12.2013 and death of one cow bearing tag OIC-76048 on 18.3.2014. The OP repudiated the claim only on the ground that there was misrepresentation regarding calvation of the cow.

 

7.                The learned counsel for the OP vehemently argued that as per health  cum evaluation certificate approximate  age of the cow was four years  and number of lactation was second, but at the time of  death, the age of the cow was four years three months and number of lactation was three, which could not be possible  at that age and there  being misrepresentation regarding number of lactation, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the OP.

 

8.                This argument of the learned counsel for the OP cannot be accepted being devoid of force.  In the health cum evaluation certificate Ex.O1, the age of the cow was mentioned as four years just by approximation.  Therefore, it cannot be said that cow was of the exact age of four years on 17.12.2013 when insurance was cover note was issued, the age could be more than four years even at that time. Moreover, when the cow was medically examined at the time of issuing health certificate, the concerned Veterinary Officer could very well know as to how many calvation could take place by that time. In the claim form, the copy of which is Ex.O3,  it has been mentioned that date of last calvation was  15.01.2014, therefore, in such a situation, it would  have been third calvation at the time of death of the cow.  Moreover, the learned counsel for the OP could not cite any book on medical science regarding age of cow or other animals of the same species or such kind of species for  lactation/calvation, on the basis of which it can be said that a  cow aged  approximately more than 4 years and three months cannot have   third calvation.  Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any misrepresentation by the complainant at the time of getting her cow insured.  Under such circumstances, repudiation of the claim of the complainant on the basis of misrepresentation regarding calvation of the cow is not legally justified and thus there was deficiency in services on the part of Ops. Cost of the cow in Ex.C3 health cum evaluation certificate has been shown as Rs.50,000/-.

 

9.                In view of the foregoing discussion, we  accept the present complaint and direct the OP to make the payment of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 25.6.2014 till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.5500/-  for the mental agony and harassment caused to her and litigation expenses. The OP shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated:21.09.2015                                                                            

                                                               (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member.

 

 

 

 

Present:        Sh.G.S.Kadyan Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Rattan Sharma Advocate for the OP.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:21.09.2015                                                                            

                                                               (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member.