The United India Insurance Company Limited V/S Bimo Devi W/o Suhbir Singh - Consumer Court Case

Haryana

Karnal

168/2012

Bimo Devi W/o Suhbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The United India Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.R.K. Arora

22 Jan 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

Complaint No.168 of 2012

Date of instt.: 26.03.2012

Date of decision: 22.01.2016

Smt.Bimo Devi wife ofShri Sukhbir Singh resident of village Dayalpura of village Pakhana tehsil Nilokheri district Karnal.

. ……..Complainant.

Vs.

1.The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office, Karnal.

2.The Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Taraori district Karnal.

……… Opposite Parties.

Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

Protection Act.

Before Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

Present:- Sh.R.K.Arora Advocate for the complainant.

Sh.Virender Adlakha Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1

Sh.Suresh Khanna Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2.

ORDER:

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that she had taken loan from Opposite Party No.2 for purchasing two buffalos and the said buffaloes were got insured from Opposite Party No.1 for the period of 12.7.2011 to 11.7.2012.One buffalo was of black colour, Murrah breed and aged about five years regarding which tag no.OIC-04235 was issued by the Opposite Party No.1. The said buffalo expired on 2.9.2011.Information was sent by the complainant to the Opposite Parties. On the same day, officials of the Opposite Party No.1 reached the spot and made enquiries and thereafter assured that the amount of claim would be disbursed regarding the deceased buffalo. However, clandestinely they removed the original tag from the deceased buffalo. It has further been alleged that the complainant approached the Opposite Parties for payment of the claim, but the matter was postponed on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, she got served legal notice dated 10.2.2012 upon the Opposite Parties, but the same did not yield any result. In this way, there was deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite parties, which caused her mental agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2. Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Party no.1 filed its written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that complaint is not maintainable in the present corm; that the complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by her own acts and conduct; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint and that the complaint is false and frivolous to the knowledge of the complainant.

On merits, it has been denied that intimation regarding death of the buffalo was given to the Opposite Party No.1 immediately. It has been submitted that intimation regarding death of the buffalo was given to the bank by the complainant on 13.9.2011 after eleven days of the alleged death of the buffalo. Intimation was received by the Opposite Party no.1 after delay of more than 20 days. No post mortem on the dead body of the deceased buffalo was got conducted by the complainant. After receiving intimation, the Opposite Party no.1 appointed investigator, who visited the spot, but dead body of the deceased buffalo was not available at that time .Statements of Babu Ram son of Bhartu, Beena wife of Satbir Singh, Shakuntla Devi wife of Shri Ram Jatan and Amarjit Kaur Sarpanch of the village were recorded in that regard. It has further been averred that the claim of the complainant was repudiated on 5.3.2012, as the description of the dead buffalo did not tally with the health certificate. The factum of service of legal notice upon the Opposite Parties has not been disputed but it has been submitted that the same was duly replied. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3. The Opposite Party nbo.2 filed separate written statement. Objections have been raised that the complainant has no cause of action against the Opposite Party no.2; that the complaint is bad for mis joinder of the parties; that the complaint is not maintainable against the Opposite Party no.2 and that the complaint is false and frivolous one.

On merits, it has been submitted that the buffalo purchased by the complainant were insured with the Opposite Party no.1 and hypothecated with the Opposite Party no.2. Intimation regarding death of the buffalo given by the complainant to the Opposite Party no.2 and then the same was sent to the Opposite party no.1.However, the Opposite Party no.2 being creditor was not liable and the insurer Opposite Party no.1 was to indemnify the insured. The other averments made in the complaint have not been admitted.

4. In evidence of the complainant, her affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 have been tendered.

5. On the other hand, in evidence of the Opposite Parties affidavits of S.S.Vasudeva and Sh.Vasudev Soni Ex.OP2/1 and Ex.OP2 respectively and documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP9 and Ex.OP2/A to Ex.OP2/B have been tendered.

6. We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

7. There is no dispute between the parties that complainant got insured two buffaloes with the Opposite Party no.1, which were purchased by her by taking loan from Opposite Party no.2. As per the case of the complainant, the buffalo bearing tag No. UIC-04235 died on 2.9.2011. Admittedly, no post mortem was got conducted on the dead body of the deceased buffalo. The complainant has alleged that intimation of the death of the buffalo was given to the Opposite parties on the same day i.e. 2.9.2011, but the copy of the letter Ex.O5/Ex.C3 falsifies her version in this regard because the said letter clearly indicates that the same was sent by the complainant to Opposite Party no.2 on 13.9.2011 i.e. after eleven days of the death of the buffalo. Ex.OP6 also shows that Opposite party no.2 sent intimation of death of buffalo to opposite party no.1 vide letter dated 13.9.2011. Therefore, the plea of the complainant cannot be accepted that intimation was given to the Opposite Parties on 2.9.2011 and the officials of Opposite Party no.1 reached the spot, made enquiry and took away the original tag of the deceased buffalo. The facts and circumstances make it quite clear that officials of Opposite party no.1 had no opportunity to identify the deceased buffalo at the spot and tally the description of the same with the description of the insured buffalo mentioned in the health certificate.

8. The complainant did not get post mortem conducted on the dead body of the deceased buffalo, which could be the best evidence to establish the description of the deceased buffalo, which allegedly died and was insured with the Opposite Party No.1. It was incumbent upon the complainant in order to claim from the insurance company, but no cogent explanation has been given by the complainant as to why post mortem was not got conducted .

9. In view of the aforediscussed facts and circumstances, we arrive at the conclusion that the complainant has not been able to establish that buffalo, which was insured with the Opposite party no.1, had died on 2.9.2011. Therefore, the order of the Opposite party no.1 repudiating the claim of the complainant cannot be termed as illegal or unjustified in any manner.

10. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated:22.01.2016

(K.C.Sharma)

President,

District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum, Karnal.

(Anil Sharma )

Member.