BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                                      Complaint No.: 44 of 2014.

                                                                      Date of Institution: 6.2.2014.

                                                                      Date of Decision: 20.8.2015.

Ranvir Sharma son of Shri Ram Chander, resident of village Mithathal, tehsil and district Bhiwani.

                                                                      ….Complainant.   

                                        Versus

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Red Cross Bhawan, Mini Zoo Road, Bhiwani, through its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Bhiwani.

…...Respondent.

                    COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF

                    THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:         Shri Balraj Singh, Member,

                    Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member,

Present:   Shri Narender Vats, Adv. for complainant.

                Shri R.K.Verma, Adv. for respondent.

BALRAJ SINGH, MEMBER:         

ORDER

                    The case of the complainant in brief, is that he was owner of a Buffalo which was insured from respondent company. Unfortunately the insured Buffalo of the complainant died on 8.10.2012 due to illness and the post mortem of the dead Buffalo was conducted from Veterinary Hospital, Mithathal.  It is further alleged that complainant informed the respondent regarding death of Insured Buffalo and after completion of all the formalities he submitted claim form but his claim has not been settled till date. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondent, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such, he had to file the present complaint.

2.                 On appearance, the respondent filed written statement alleging therein that as per investigation report dated 18.3.2013 it seems that the said Buffalo is not the same which was insured with the respondent company with tag No.01726. Therefore, the claim of the complainant was repudiated and he was informed accordingly vide letter dated 1.4.2013. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                Both the parties filed their duly sworn affidavits in their evidence to prove their respective versions along with documents. 

4.                 We have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length.

5.                 The ld. Counsel for the complainant contended that the claim of the complainant was wrongly closed as “No Claim” by the respondent vide letter dated 1.4.2013, so it has no effect on the rights of the complainant, hence, he is legally entitled to claim the compensation.

6.                 After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and having gone through the material available on the records, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant deserves acceptance, as there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  It is admitted fact that complainant was owner of a Buffalo which was insured with the respondent company and ear tag bearing No.01726 was issued by the respondent. The sole contention of learned counsel for the respondent is as per investigation report dated 18.3.2013 it seems that the said Buffalo is not the same which was insured with the respondent company with tag No.01726 and as such the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated. In our view, the plea taken by the respondent has no substance at all because from the perusal of record no cogent and convincing evidence has been produced on record to prove its version.. Mere submitting the report of the Investigator is not sufficient to prove its version.  On the other hand the complainant has placed on record Annexure “A” photo stat copy of Health Certificate, Annexure “B” Insurance Policy, Annexure “C” Photostat copy of Post Mortem Report and Annexure “D” Photostat copy Premium receipt. From the perusal of post mortem report it is revealed that the buffalo died having Ear Tag No. 01726 which was issued by the respondent. Furthermore, the name of owner of the insured Buffalo in the post mortem report has clearly been found mentioned as Ranvir Sharma son of Shri Ram Chander, resident of village Mithathal, tehsil and district Bhiwani (Complainant).  No contrary evidence has been produced by the respondent to disprove the above said fact, whereas it is fully proved from the post mortem report and the documents of insurance that the buffalo of the complainant died on 18.10.2012 and at the time of post mortem the tag No.01726 was in the ear of dead Buffalo. Therefore, the plea of respondent is not tenable. So the complainant is entitled to get the insured amount along with interest.  In view of these circumstances, the complaint of the complainant is allowed with costs and respondent is directed: -

1.       To pay Rs.30,000/- i.e. insured amount along with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the date of repudiation till its realization.

          2.       To pay Rs. 2200/- as litigation charges.

                    The compliance of the order shall be made within 45 days from the date of the order.  Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 20.8.2015.                                        

       (Ansuya Bishnoi)                                        (Balraj Singh)

             Member.                                                       Member

  District Consumer Disputes                  District Consumer Disputes

  Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.                   Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.