Haryana

Karnal

79/2013

Raj Rani W/o Mahinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Company Limited. 2. The New India Assurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Rohit Sharma

16 Jul 2014

ORDER

 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                           Complaint No.79 of 2013

                                                               Date of instt.8.02.2013

                                                               Date of decision: 14.07.2015

 

Smt. Raj Rani wife of Shri Mahinder Singh resident of village Ramba district Karnal.

                                                          ………….Complainant.

 

                                                          Versus

 

The New India Assurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager, GT Road, Karnal..

                                                           ……… Opposite Party.

                   Complaint u/s  12 of the Consumer

                   Protection Act.

 

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

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma…….Member.    

 

resent           Sh.Rohit Sharma Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Rohit Gupta Advocate for the OP.       

ORDER:                   

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant  U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that he had purchased a buffalo  in November, 2011 for a sum of Rs.40,000/-  by availing loan facility of  Rs.35,000/-  from the State Bank of Patiala, village  Sangoha district Karnal vide loan account No. TL-65101209868.  The said buffalo was   insured with the  OP. (hereinafter referred to as the OP) for a sum of Rs.40,000/- vide cover note No. 35360147120400000022 dated  27.09.2012 and tag number of the buffalo was duly issued by the OP. The policy was valid  from  27.9.2012 to 26.9.2013. The buffalo was hale and hearty and not suffering  from any disease and the same was examined by the Veterinary Surgeon at the time of insurance. However, suddenly, the said buffalo died on 25.11.2012, but due to illiteracy, he could not get conducted post  mortem on the dead body of the buffalo. After the death of the buffalo, the matter was reported to the OP and requisite claim  form and other relevant documents were submitted but the OP repudiated the claim on the flimsy  grounds, vide letter dated 19.12.2012. The repudiation of the claim by the OP is totally illegal and unjustified.  No opportunity was given to the complainant to explain her position.  Thus, there was deficiency in services on the part of the OP. The claiment has claimed  Rs.40,000/- for which buffalo was insured alongwith Rs.30,000/- as  damages on account of deficiency in services and mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by her.

2.                On notice,  the OP appeared and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain, decide and adjudicate upon the complaint;  that the complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own acts and conduct.

                   On merits, factum of insurance of the buffalo of the complainant has not been disputed. It has been submitted that no post mortem of the buffalo was got conducted.  As per statement of the complainant even ear tag of the buffalo had fallen and same misplaced after 4/5 months of the purchase of the same.  Therefore, the claim of the complainant does not fall within the purview of the terms and conditions of the policy and her complaint is not maintainable. Thus, there was no deficiency in services on the part of the OP and the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 19.12.2012.  Repudiation of the claim of the complainant was legally justified. 

3.                The complainant in her evidence filed her affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5.

4.                On the other hand in the evidence of the OP affidavit of Shri D.K.Sarin, DM of the OP Ex.O1 and documents Ex.O2 to Ex.O7 have been produced.

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  the fact that one buffalo was purchased by the complainant,  the same was  insured with the OP for a sum of Rs.40,000/-  for the period of 27.9.2012 to 26.9.2013 and cover note and tag number were duly issued.  As per the case of the complainant the said buffalo died on 25.11.2012, but this fact has been disputed by the OP.

7.                Admittedly no post mortem on the dead body of the buffalo was got conducted by the complainant.  Even after the death of buffalo, the OP was not informed so that it  could be verified that the same buffalo which was insured had died. Ex.C4 shows that complainant moved an application  on 15.12.2012 to the State Bank of Patiala, who had financed her for purchasing the buffalo for submitting the claim to the Insurance Company,  whereas the buffalo had allegedly died on 25.11.2012.  It is admitted fact that ear tag was fixed in the ear of the buffalo which could be material evidence to prove that same buffalo had died, but even the tag was not produced by the complainant before the OP. Thus, except the affidavit of the complainant Ex.C1 there is no evidence, which may establish that buffalo, which was insured by the OP, had died on 25.11.2012.  In the absence of any other evidence, the self serving affidavit of the complainant cannot be taken to be the gospel truth  and the same is not sufficient to prove that buffalo of the complainant, which was insured by the OP had died on 25.11.2012.

 

8.                In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove that the buffalo which was got insured by him with the OP  for the period of 27.9.2012 to 26.9.2013, had died on 25.11.2012. Thus, it is not established that there was deficiency in services on the part of the OP and as such the repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the OP cannot be termed as illegal or unjustified in any manner.  Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and hereby dismiss the same.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated:14.07.2015                                                                            

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.

 

 

Present         Sh.Rohit Sharma Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Rohit Gupta Advocate for the OP.

 

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

 

 

Announced
dated:14.07.2015                                                                            

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.