Haryana

Kaithal

148/20

Karnail Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Gurdev Singh

08 Sep 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.148/2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 17.06.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:06.09.2023.

Karnail Singh son of Miyan Singh, resident of Ward No.2, Balbhera Road, Cheeka, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Kaithal Branch, Office at Kaithal through its Branch Manager (Insurer of buffalo vide cattle policy No.31270047190400000186 dt. 12.06.2019 valid upto 11.06.2020).
2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office-312700, NH-5/R-2 Badshah Khan Chowk, Faridabad-121001 through its Divisional Manager (Insurer of buffalo vide cattle policy No.31270047190400000186 dt. 12.06.2019 valid upto 11.06.2020)

 

….OPs.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Gurdev Singh, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. C.S.Gupta, Advocate for the OPs.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Karnail Singh-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant got insured his buffalo with the OPs vide policy No.31270047190400000186 dt. 12.06.2019 valid upto 11.06.2020 for the insured amount of Rs.60,000/-.  The tag inserted in the ear of the buffalo was having No.160039322414.  The said buffalo fell ill on 09.11.2019 and the said buffalo was under the treatment of Veterinary Surgeon, Guhla w.e.f. 9.11.2019 to 14.11.2019 and died on 14.11.2019.  The post-mortem of said buffalo was got conducted on 14.11.2019.  The complainant lodged the claim with the OPs and submitted all the necessary documents but the OPs repudiated the claim of complainant.  The said repudiation of claim is stated to be wrong and illegal.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  It needs to be submitted here that just after the receipt of intimation regarding the alleged loss, the company with all promptness registered the claim and initiated the necessary steps to process the claim.  However, the tag was found broken/tampered condition when the beneficiary handed over the same, as such, the tag which is pre-condition to settle the claim was not found genuine.  As such, the competent authority after having examined all the relevant documents and policy terms and conditions being the prudent trustee, found the claim not payable and decided to repudiate the liability and accordingly, intimated the complainant vide letter dt. 02.03.2020.  The said repudiation of claim is legal and valid.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C14 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             On the other hand, the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R4 and request for remaining evidence.  Thereafter, the OPs did not produce remaining evidence despite availing several opportunities, so, the remaining evidence of OPs was closed vide court order dt. 20.04.2023.

6.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant got insured his buffalo with the OPs vide policy No.31270047190400000186 dt. 12.06.2019 valid upto 11.06.2020 for the insured amount of Rs.60,000/-.  The tag inserted in the ear of the buffalo was having No.160039322414.  It is further argued that the said buffalo fell ill on 09.11.2019 and the said buffalo was under the treatment of Veterinary Surgeon, Guhla w.e.f. 9.11.2019 to 14.11.2019 and died on 14.11.2019.  The post-mortem of said buffalo was got conducted on 14.11.2019.  It is further argued that the complainant lodged the claim with the OPs and submitted all the necessary documents but the OPs repudiated the claim of complainant.  The said repudiation of claim is stated to be wrong and illegal.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Ld. counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon the case law titled as NIC Vs. Kameshwar Lal, decided by Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh State Commission, bearing F.A.No.133 of 2004, date of decision: 18.06.2008 and 2013(1) CLT page 447 titled as OIC Vs. Mahabir Singh and others (Haryana State Commission).

8.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that just after the receipt of intimation regarding the alleged loss, the company with all promptness registered the claim and initiated the necessary steps to process the claim.  However, the tag was found broken/tampered condition when the beneficiary handed over the same, as such, the tag which is pre-condition to settle the claim was not found genuine.  It is further argued that the competent authority after having examined all the relevant documents and policy terms and conditions being the prudent trustee, found the claim not payable and decided to repudiate the liability and accordingly, intimated the complainant vide letter dt. 02.03.2020. 

9.             The OPs have repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 02.03.2020 as per Annexure-R1 that at the time of death of buffalo, the tag was found broken/tampered condition.  We have perused the post-mortem report as per Annexure-C6, wherein in the column of Tatoo/Brand Name, it is mentioned “Intact at the time of post-mortem” and tag number is mentioned as 160039322414.  During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the OPs has vehemently contended that there is cutting and manipulation in the aforesaid column of tag number in the post-mortem report and he was asked to produce original copy of post-mortem report.  Ld. counsel for the OPs-insurance company has placed on file original post-mortem report, which is Mark-A on the file and perusal of said report, it is clear that there is no cutting or manipulation in the column of tag number in the said post-mortem report.  As per Annexure-C10 also, the Veterinary Surgeon has mentioned the aforesaid tag number in the said report.  So, the aforesaid contention of OPs that there was cutting and manipulation in the post-mortem report regarding column of tag number has no force.  We have perused all the documents placed on the file.  The tag number, description and other particulars mentioned in the post-mortem report Annexure C6 are also tallies with other documents.  We can rely upon the authority titled as M/s. Orchid Developers Pvt. Td. and others Vs. Uttam Kuar Majumder 2019(1) CLT 350 (NC), wherein it has been held that “Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g)-Duty of Consumer Fora-The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been enacted by the Legislature to help the consumers from exploitation in the hands of unscrupulous service providers-It is incumbent duty of the Commission to ensure that Act is implemented not only in letter but also in spirit-It is, therefore, the duty of the Commission to ensure that consumers are not being harassed by false, frivolous and meritless litigations and they get speedy justice-The object of the Act loses its purpose if the Court permits meritless litigations and allow the exploitation of the consumer-The consumers are also consumers of justice and it is the paramount duty to protect their rights and nip all such litigations including appeal or revision in bud-To discourage such efforts against consumers, it is essential that heavy costs be imposed-Appeal dismissed.  We can also rely upon the authority titled as OIC Vs. Mahabir Singh and others (supra), wherein Hon’ble State Commission Haryana has held that “Repudiation of insurance claim of-Insured buffalo died on account of fall in pond-Buffalo-Repudiation of insurance claim on the ground that the deceased buffalo was not having tag in the ear which was inserted at the time of issuing the Insurance Policy-Insurance Company pleaded that the identity of the deceased insured buffalo was doubtful-Plea not sustainable-PMR prepared by Veterinary Surgeon and Certificate issued by the Sarpanch of the village regarding identity of the deceased buffalo-Reliable-Appellant/Op justified to be held liable to pay insured amount-Interest reduced-Appeal partly allowed”.  Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Commission is of the view that the OPs have wrongly repudiated the claim of complainant and OPs are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.  The authorities submitted by ld. counsel for the complainant are fully applicable to the facts of instant case. 

10.            Thus, as a sequel of aforesaid discussion, we direct the OPs to pay the insured amount of Rs.60,000/- of dead buffalo to the complainant within 45 days from today, failing which, the aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of this order till its realization.  The Ops are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of physical harassment and mental agony as-well-as litigation charges to the complainant.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly. 

11.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against OPs shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:06.09.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.