BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 102 of 2011                                                                          

                                                         Date of Institution         :    3.5.2011

                                                          Date of decision   :    28.7.2016

Raghubir, aged about 40 years s/o Sh.Manphool Ram, r/o village Dhotar Tehsil Rania, Distt. Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                                      Versus.

United Insurance Company, Divisional Office, Sirsa.                                                                                                           

                                                                       ...…Opposite party

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SHRI S.B.LOHIA……………………….PRESIDENT

                     SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……MEMBER. 

Present:       Sh.Suresh Mehta,  Advocate for the complainant.

     Sh. S.K.Puri, Advocate for opposite party.

ORDER

                   In brief, complainant case is that he got insured his two buffalos with United Insurance Company Ltd. i.e. opposite party. On the basis of health-cum-evaluation certificate, evaluation of each buffalo was assessed at Rs.30,000/-. As alleged, during the insurance period, one of the buffalo died on 15.2.2010. Post mortem was conducted by the doctor of Veternity hospital, Dhotar, tehsil Rania distt. Sirsa.  As per the PMR, buffalo might have died to respiratory failure. As alleged, Op-company failed to compensate the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, Ops contested the case by filing written version that at the time of inspection of dead buffalo, there was no tag in the ears. It is further replied that as per the settled condition of policy, No Tag No Claim and there is no deficiency on the part of the op-company and the compliant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                By way of evidence, complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1; photocopy of application Ex.C2; another photocopy of application Ex.C3; photocopy of Health-cum-Evaluation certificate Ex.C4; photocopies of PMR Ex.,C5, whereas the Ops produced affidavit of Sr.Divisonal Manager Ex.R1.

4.                We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5.                To decide the present complaint, there is only one question involved, which is whether the complainant is entitled for any compensation in case of “No tag” in the ears of deceased insured buffalo? To answer this, learned counsel for the Op produced the case law cited as IV (2008) CPJ 122 (UP) titled as OIC Vs. Ram Surat & Ors. It is held by the Hon’ble State Commission UP that identity of the dead animal not proved in the absence of tag. From the post mortem report, which is Ex.C5, it is clear that no tag was found in the ears of deceased buffalo. From the application ex.C2 and Ex.C3, it is clear that second time,  tags have been affixed in the ears of the buffalo on the request of the complainant. From the post mortem report and also from the pleadings of the complainant, it is clear that there was no tag in the ear of deceased buffalo. In our view, as per the terms of policy, Ops rightly repudiated the claim and there is no deficiency on their part. 

6.                Resultantly, this complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum.                                           President,

Dated:28.7.2016.                                                 District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

                                        Member.