Haryana

Karnal

CC/380/2017

Sabhjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisinal Officer, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Virender Chauhan

19 Dec 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.380 of 2017

                                                         Date of instt. 15.11.2017

                                                         Date of decision:19.12.2018

 

Sahbjit Singh son of Gurdeep Singh, resident of village Dera Phula Singh, Tehsil Assandh District Karnal.

                                                                                                                                                                      …….Complainant 

                                        Versus

 

The Divisional Officer, Oriental Insurance company Ltd. Kurukshetra.

                                       

                                                                        …..Opposite Party

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

              Shri Vineet Kaushik………Member

 

 Present  Shri Virender Chauhan Advocate for complainant.

               Shri Karamvir Mandhan Advocate for opposite party.

               

                (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant is an agriculturist by profession and having buffalos and used to sell their milk. The complainant was owner of a buffalo aged about 5 years 9 months, who was insured with the OP, vide policy cover note no.1068009 dated 18.02.2016 for Rs.50,000/- alongwith other cow and Tag no.160001/142461 and 160001/142665 issued by the OP. On 7.5.2016 at about 4.30 a.m. the buffalo of tag no.160001/142665 died suddenly and in this regard complainant informed the  OP immediately and on the instruction of the OP the complainant got conducted the post mortem of buffalo on the same.  Thereafter, as per the instruction of the OP the complainant completed all the formalities and submitted all documents to the office of the OP and OP gave assurance that they will pay the death claim of buffalo to the complainant within 15 days but OP did not pay any claim till today and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other. Then complainant sent a legal notice in this regard to the OP but it also did not yield any result. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action and complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hands. The true facts are that the tag no.142665 was not covered anywhere in the Health Certificate as well as in the record of company. So, the complainant is not liable to get any relief. It is further pleaded that the buffalo of tag no.160001/142465 was not covered under the policy. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed his evidence on 10.07.2018.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Manraj Kaur Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R10 and closed the evidence on 28.11.2017.

5.             We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.             That the case of the complainant is that the complainant was owner of buffalo aged about 5 years and 9 months, who was insured with the OP, vide policy cover note no.1068009 dated 18.02.2016 for Rs.50,000/- alongwith other cow and tag no.160001/142461 and 160001/142665. On 7.5.2016, the buffalo of tag no.160001/142665 died suddenly and in this regard OP was informed immediately by the complainant and on instruction of OP the post-mortem of the buffalo got conducted. All the documents were submitted by the complainant with the OP for claim, but OP did not issue his claim so far.

7.             On the other hand, the case of the OP is that tag no.142665 was not covered anywhere in the health certificate as well as in the record of company. Only one cattle bearing tag no.160001/142461 was insured. On perusal of cover note (Ex.R8) only cattle of tag no.142461 is insured. This fact also proved by the OP in death claim (Ex.R9) that the tag no.142665 is not subject matter of the policy. Complainant relied upon cover note and document (Ex.C3 and Ex.C4) in both documents tag no.142665 mentioned but that tag number not tally with handwriting of the tag no.142461. Thus, in both documents tag no.142665 mentioned, lateron. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that OP is not deficient.  

8.             Thus, as a sequel to above discussion, we do not find any merits, in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced:

Dated:19.12.2018                                      President,

District Consumer Disputes

             (Vineet Kaushik)                   Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                 Member