Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1253/2012

Vipin Kamboj S/o Rajinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Kumar

14 Oct 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI

 

                                                                   Complaint No.1253 of 2012.

                                                                   Date of Instt.   04.12.2012.

                                                                   Date of Decision:14.10.2016.

 

Vipin Kamboj aged 35 years son of Rajinder Singh resident of village Radhur P.O. Radhur District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                        ….Complainant

                                                       Versus

 

1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Opp Hindu Girls College 1^st Floor Court Road Jagadhri through its Branch Manager.
2. The Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Radhur, District Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                                                                                ….Respondents

 

                 Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

Before:                 Sh.Ashok Kumar Garg, President.

                             Sh. S.C.Sharma,  Member.

                            

Argued by:           Sh.Amit Kumar, counsel for the complainant.

                             Smt Aruna Sharma, counsel for the respondent no.1

                             Sh. P.N.Ahuja, Counsel for respondent no.2.

                            

ORDER: Sh. Ashok Kumar Garg, President

 

1.                          The complainant has filed this complaint against the respondent-Insurance Company (hereinafter referred as Op Insurance Co.) with the averments that he had got insured his 10 Cows from the respondent-company for a sum of Rs.35,000/- each vide insurance policy No.261701/47/2011/884  on 03-02-2011 valid up to 02.02.2014 through OP no.2 Bank as the complainant had obtained Diary loan for 10 cows from op no.2 Bank. The policy was issued after checking up the Cows medically (Health Certificate Annexure C-1) and the dead Cow in question was affixed a tag bearing No.OIC/RO/AMB/53150. On 13.08.2011, said Cow died and the post mortem of the dead Cow was conducted on the same day by Vety.Surgeon, Radaur.  After the death of the Cow, the complainant informed the respondent-company and also completed all the formalities with regard to depositing of concerned documents but the respondent-Company repudiated the claim of the complainant without any reasonable cause and excuse as per the investigation report. The complainant has visited the office of the respondent many a times and requested for settling the claim but in vain. The act and conduct of the respondent has not only caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant but also fall within the definition of deficiency in service on their part.

 2.                         The respondent-Company appeared and filed its reply resisting the claim of the complainant on the various grounds. It has been contended that the complainant, in order to harass, humiliate and to grab money from the OP, has filed the present complaint.  The Cow which had alleged to be died was never insured by the OP as the Cow so insured by the complainant with the insurance company, was having loose ear tag No.53150 in the ear at the time of inspection carried out by the Surveyor Sh. Surinder Kumar. Moreover, as per the report of post mortem and the statement of the complainant, the particulars of the Cow do not confirm that the dead  Cow was the same which was insured with the OP. It is further submitted that there were contradictions in the health certificate and the post mortem report which makes it clear that the dead Cow was not insured with the OP. There is no deficiency in service on the part of insurance company as it is not liable to pay any amount of loss of the animal which was never insured with it. The other allegations of the complainant have also been controverted by the respondent-Company and it has been prayed that the complaint of the complainant be dismissed with costs.

3.                          The parties have led their evidence in the form of affidavits and documents. The complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A and documents as Annexure.C1 to Annexure.C8 whereas the counsel for OP Insurance Company has tendered into evidence affidavits as Annexure RW/A  and RW/B and documents as Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-5. 

4.                         Heard. We have examined the pleadings and documents of the parties very carefully. From the material available on the case file, it transpires that the complainant had purchased an insurance policy from the insurance company for 10 Cows which was valid from 03.02.2011 to 02.02.2014 and the dead Cow was affixed with tag ID No.OIC/RO/AMB/53150 as is evident through Ex.C-1/R-1 There is also no dispute that the Cow of the complainant has died and this fact is even clear from a copy of the post mortem report C-3. It is also not in dispute that the complainant had submitted his claim to the respondent-company. It is also not disputed that the Cow had died during the subsistence of the policy.  The complainant has however been aggrieved from the action of the respondent-Company when the respondent-Company repudiated the claim of the complainant vide repudiation letter dated 08.06.2012 (Annexure C-8) on the ground that “As per investigation report (Annexure R-5) died Cow was having loose Ear Tag and identification of the dead cow was quite contrary to health certificate. Hence, the claim was not payable. File was closed as No Tag No Claim”. Now the only point for determination by this forum is as to whether the respondent-company rightly and legally repudiated the claim of the complainant. In the reply filed by the OP no.1, it has been mentioned that the Cow was having ear tag No.53150 i.e. same tag as per health certificate issued by the Civil Veterinary Surgeon at the time of insurance of Cow but the Ear Tag was loose as per surveyor report. This plea taken by the OP is not survived because in the health certificate issued by the concerned doctor, the same tag No.53150 has been mentioned. Perusal of Post mortem report Ex.C-3, livestock claim intimation Annexure.C-4 & C-5 and report of investigator Ex.R-5 clearly depict that dead cow was having the ear tag number OIC 53150 in the ear at the time of postmortem as well as investigation by the surveyor and the complainant has been shown as owner of the said Cow.  The act and conduct of the insurance company by wrongly mentioning that the ear tag was loose clearly reveals that it bent upon to avoid the legal claim of the complainant on one pretext or the other because it has been clearly established on the case file that the dead Cow was having tag No.OIC 53150 and the complainant was owner of the same. The insurance-company is relying upon the report of surveyor AnnexureR-5. It is well settled principle of law that there is no provision under the law to appoint a Surveyor by the Insurance Company of its own when there is no legal sanctity to the report submitted by such a surveyor. Such an investigation can be got done by the Insurance Company for its own satisfaction but in order to prove the report, the Insurance Company shall have to produce independent evidence about the  report.  In that view of the things, the respondent has committed an error in not releasing the insurance amount of the dead Cow in favour of the complainant. This approach is totally illegal and cannot be accepted.  Thus, we have no doubt in our mind in holding that the dead Cow was the same which was insured with the OP No.1 Insurance Company and there is negligence and deficiency in service on its part in not releasing the insurance amount in favour of the complainant. However, the complaint qua the op no.2 is hereby ordered to be dismissed as the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency against it.

5.                          For the reasons and findings recorded above, we hereby partly allow the complaint against OP no. 1 Insurance Co. directing it to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/-, the insured amount of the dead Cow, to the complainant with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint till actual payment. The OP No.1 is further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- in lump sum for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant. The compliance of this order be made within a period of one month, failing which the complainant is at liberty to initiate the legal proceedings against the respondent-company. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in the open court:

Dated:14.10.2016

                                                           (Ashok Kumar Garg)

                                                           President

                                                           Distt.Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum,Yamuna Nagar.

 

 

                                                           (S.C.Sharma)

                                                            Member