Haryana

Kaithal

CC/53/2023

Satbir - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. S.C. Walia

17 Jul 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.53/2023.

                                                     Date of institution: 28.02.2023.

                                                     Date of decision:17.07.2023.

Satbir son of Sh. Jagdish, aged 60 years, resident of Village Habri, Tehsil Pundri, District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, Ambala Road, Kaithal, through its Branch Manager.
2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Division Office, N.H. R/2, near Badshah Khan Chowk N.17 Faridabad (Haryana), through its Manager.
3. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Head Office 87 M.G.Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 through its Managing Director.

….OPs.

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. S.C.Walia, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Amit Singh Rana, Advocate for the OPs.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Satbir-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that in the month of March, 2021 the complainant got insured three mulching chows with the OPs after making premium for the period w.e.f. 23.03.2021 to 22.03.2022 and tag No.100383303986, 100383837308 and 100383837332 were given to the above-said cows which were insured for Rs.49,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.40,000/- respectively.  The case of complainant is that out of above-said three mulching cows, one cow bearing tag No.100383837308 died on 06.02.2022.  Information regarding death of cow was given to the OPs.  The post-mortem of said cow was got conducted by the Veterinary Surgeon on the same day.  The complainant got lodged the claim with the OPs and submitted all the necessary documents but the OPs did not settle the claim of complainant.  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 with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action.  The true facts are that the three Milch cows of complainant were insured vide tag No.100383303986, 100383837308, 100383837332 for the amount of Rs.49,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.40,000/- respectively vide policy No.31270047202700147637 dt. 23.03.2021.  After receiving information regarding sudden death of one cow, the surveyor was deputed to verify the same.  After receiving the report of surveyor dt. 01.03.2022, the claim of complainant was processed and approved for the amount of Rs.40,000/-.  The aforesaid amount of Rs.40,000/- was remitted in the bank account No.40095935093 in branch Habri through NEFT but the same could not be credited in the aforesaid account provided by the complainant, on which the complainant was asked to provide the complete particulars of bank account with IFSC Code etc. to pay the approved amount but the complainant despite providing the same, has filed this complaint.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

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

5.             It is an admitted fact that during the pendency of present complaint, the complainant has received the amount of Rs.40,000/- from the OPs.  The complainant has prayed for compensation as he has been dragged by the OPs into unwanted litigation and he has suffered harassment and mental agony.  In view of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  So far the evidence in the present case is concerned, this is summary trial, which can be decided without adducing the evidence.    

6.             As a result of aforesaid discussion, we direct the OPs to pay the amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of physical harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.3,000/- as litigation charges within 45 days from today.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly.      

7.             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.:17.07.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.