Haryana

Kaithal

216/20

Tarun Chahal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Sanjeev Kumar

24 Mar 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.216 of 2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 22.07.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:24.03.2023.

Tarun Chahal S/o Dilbag Singh Chahal r/o Village Kotra, Tehsil Rajound, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office: NH-5-R/2, Near Badshah Khan Chowk, N.I.T. Faridabad-121001 (Haryana).
2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Head Office: 87, M G Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001.
3. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal, Distt. Kaithal.

….Respondents.

        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. Sanjeev Saini, Advocate, for the complainant.   

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

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

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

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant got insured five buffaloes with the OPs vide policy No.31270047180400000292 valid for the period w.e.f. 25.03.2019 to 24.03.2020 bearing tag No.160016855693, 160016855055, 160016855146, 160016855363 and 160016855751 and complainant paid Rs.4843/- as premium amount of said policy and doctor of Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Serdha verified the tags as per buffalo.  It is alleged that one buffalo of complainant bearing tag No.160016855055 expired on 18.11.2019 and post-mortem of said buffalo was got conducted on the same day.  The complainant lodged the claim with the OPs and submitted all the necessary documents but the OPs did not settle the claim of complainant.  It is further alleged that the complainant also sent a letter to respondent No.1 on 08.01.2020 for death claim of his insured buffalo and the doctor of Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Serdha verified the letter of complainant and send the same to SDO (AHSB) Department, Kaithal for further action vide letter dt. 15.01.2020.  The complainant requested the OPs several times to pay the claim but the OPs repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 20.12.2019.  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 respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

2.            Upon notice, the respondents 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 answering respondent on any count as enshrined under the Consumer Protection Act and thus, the complainant is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission on any count.  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 deputed the independent surveyor and loss assessor.  As such, Mr. Ajay Chopra, an independent surveyor and loss assessor submitted its report dt. 27.11.2019 and found that “Tag was fixed freshly in the animal ear”.  As such, location of tag was found different in the live and dead animal.  Thus, the tag which is pre-condition to settle the claim was not found genuine.  As such competent authority after having examined all the relevant documents and policy terms and conditions found the claim not payable and repudiated the claim vide letter dt. 20.12.2019.  The said repudiation of claim is stated to be legal and valid.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C11 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.             On the other hand, the respondents tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/B alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

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

6.             Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant got insured his five buffaloes with the OPs vide policy No.31270047180400000292 valid for the period w.e.f. 25.03.2019 to 24.03.2020 bearing tag No.160016855693, 160016855055, 160016855146, 160016855363 and 160016855751 and complainant paid Rs.4843/- as premium amount of said policy and doctor of Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Serdha verified the tags as per buffalo.  It has been further argued that one buffalo of complainant bearing tag No.160016855055 expired on 18.11.2019 and post-mortem of said buffalo was got conducted on the same day.  It has been further argued that the complainant also sent a letter to respondent No.1 on 08.01.2020 for death claim of his insured buffalo and the doctor of Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Serdha verified the letter of complainant and send the same to SDO (AHSB) Department, Kaithal for further action vide letter dt. 15.01.2020.  It has been further argued that the complainant requested the OPs several times to pay the claim but the OPs repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 20.12.2019.  So, there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs and hence, prayed for acceptance of complaint with cost. 

7.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OPs argued that on receipt of intimation regarding the alleged loss, the company with all promptness registered the claim and deputed the independent surveyor and loss assessor namely Mr. Ajay Chopra.  It has been further argued that the said independent surveyor and loss assessor submitted his report dt. 27.11.2019 and found that “Tag was fixed freshly in the animal ear”.  It has been further argued that the said repudiation of claim by the OPs is legal and valid.  During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the OPs has given written arguments which is Mark-‘B’ on the file and placed reliance upon the case law tilted as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ram Suratrespondent, 2008(2) decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 18.02.2008. 

8.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.  On perusal of file, it is clear that Dr. Gurbaksh Singh was present at the time of insurance as per Annexure-C1 and he also got conducted the post-mortem of dead buffalo, which is Annexure-C3.  He has also given the certificate about the insured buffalo which is Annexure-C5.  In the post-mortem report, Annexure-C3, the tag number of dead buffalo is mentioned as 160016-855055 and the same tag number is mentioned in the certificate of insurance, Annexure-C1 and other documents. The complainant has also produced the photographs of dead buffalo i.e. Annexure-C6 to Annexure-C8 on the file.  On the other hand, the Ops did not produce any document or photograph which could prove that the tag was freshly tagged with the dead buffalo.  This shows that the insured buffalo was died and there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Moreover, complainant also place reliance upon the copy of order dt.19.10.2022 passed by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana in case titled as The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mahabir Singh bearing First Appeal No.433 of 2011, wherein it has been observed as under:-

        “It is admitted case of the parties that the deceased buffalo was insured with the appellant-opposite party and the buffalo died during the subsistence of the insurance policy.  It is also not disputed that the post-mortem of the deceased buffalo was conducted by Veterinary Surgeon and the buffalo was issued by the Sarpanch of the Village.  Thus, the plea taken by the opposite party that the identity of the deceased insured buffalo was doubtful, is not sustainable in the eyes of law.  The post-mortem report prepared by Veterinary Surgeon and Certificate issued by the Sarpanch of the Village with respect to the identity of the deceased buffalo cannot be discarded.  Thus, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the non-existence of the tag in the ear of the buffalo is hardly significant because the tag had fallen in the pond wherein the buffalo had fallen and died.  Thus, the appellant-opposite party has rightly been held liable to pay the insured amount to the complainants.”

9.             Relying upon the citation mentioned above as-well-as in the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the Ops have wrongly repudiated the claim of complainant and Ops are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.  The law produced by ld. counsel for the OPs is not disputed but the same is not applicable to the facts of instant case.  So, the Ops jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay the insured amount of dead buffalo i.e. Rs.70,000/- and to pay Rs. Rs.5,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant within 45 days.  However, it is made clear that if the OPs are failed to comply with the order within stipulated period, then the OPs shall be liable to pay the interest @ 6% p.a. on the awarded amount of Rs.70,000/- from the date of order till its realization.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly.        

10.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against the respondents-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.:24.03.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.