BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 153 of 2015
Date of Institution : 4.9.2015
Date of decision : 14.10.2016
Jagat Pal son of Shri Hari Singh, resident of village Chaharwala, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
United India Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, City Thana Road, Sirsa, through its Divisional Manager at 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. M.K. Singla, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Ravinder Monga, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
In brief, complainant’s case is that he got insured his buffalo with opposite party vide insurance policy No. 111900/47/12/01/00000679 for the period from 30.11.2012 to 29.11.2013 for the sum assured of Rs.50,000/- and tag No. UII-00748 was affixed on the buffalo. On 8.7.2013, all of a sudden said buffalo fell and died. The buffalo was got treated from the Veterinary Surgeon, I/C, Govt. Vety. Hospital, Chaharwala, Distt. Sirsa and doctor opined the cause of death as acute tympani that leads to respiratory discomfort and ultimately cardiac failure. The post mortem examination on the dead body of buffalo was conducted on 8.7.2013. The complainant gave immediate information about the illness and death of the buffalo to the op. The op appointed its surveyor to inspect the deceased buffalo who was fully satisfied with the identification of the buffalo. The complainant lodged his claim with the op and supplied all the necessary documents to the op for settlement of his claim but the op vide its letter dated 12.9.2013 has repudiated the claim of complainant on the ground that the Ear Tag was not intact in the ear of the carcass and it is violation of terms and conditions of the cattle insurance policy which ground is totally wrong and false. The insured buffalo of the complainant was the same which died and the identification of the insured buffalo duly tallied with the dead buffalo. The buffalo was affixed with the tag at the time of insurance i.e. on 30.11.2012 and buffalo died on 8.7.2013 i.e. almost seven months after the insurance and during such long period, it is quite possible that the hole may have become widened and when she fell ill, she had given a severe jerk to the neck, due to which the ear tag fallen down. So the repudiation of the claim is not justified. The complainant is entitled to the sum assured of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of death of buffalo till realization. The complainant approached the op and requested for payment of the said amount but the op did not pay any heed to the same and has refused to admit his claim. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party replied that after receiving intimation from the complainant, the matter was immediately investigated by Sh. Naresh Jayant, Advocate (Investigator) who had physically inspected the dead buffalo and given his conclusion in his report that “No tag was found intact in the ear of the dead animal. It is impossible to verify the identity of the animal without tag issued by the insurance company. Only a broken part of tag was kept by the insured in his custody and he also attempted to intact the damaged part of the tag in the ear of dead animal. No request had been made by the insured to the insurance company for re-tagging the cattle. The claim case is quite suspicious and doubtful. From the sequel of investigation, the death of insured buffalo in this case/ claim is not genuine.” While considering the detail investigation report, statements of parties, documents available, the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated. The ear tag is the basic proof of identification of animal after insurance. There is a settled condition of the policy “No Tag No Claim. If the tag is not present in the ear of animal at the time of death, claim is not admissible.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, affidavit of Dharmpal neighbour Ex.C2 and documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C9. On the other hand, opposite party has tendered affidavit of Sh. K.R. Jain, Sr. Divisional Manager as Ex.R1, affidavit of Sh. Naresh Jayant, Advocate/Investigator as Ex.R2 and documents Ex.R3 to Ex.R14.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that opposite party has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant. If the identity of the buffalo is established, then it is not necessary that tag should be intact and has relied upon judgments of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case titled as NIC & Anr. Vs. Roop Das & Anr. 2004 (2) CPJ 233, Hon’ble Uttranchal State Commission, Dehradun in case titled as NIAC Vs. Kitab Singh, 2005 (1) CPJ 412, Hon’ble Uttarakhand State Commission, Dehradun in case titled as NIAC Vs. Dinesh Singh & Anr. 2009 (1) CPJ 159 and decision of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula in case titled as Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Mahabir Singh and others, 2013 (1) CLT 447.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has argued that above said authorities are not applicable in this case because identity of the insured dead buffalo is not established in the present case and therefore, claim has been rightly repudiated.
7. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The case of the opposite party is that no tag was found intact in the ear of the dead animal and without tag, the identity of the buffalo was not established. In our view, as per the terms of policy “No Tag No Claim”, opposite party rightly repudiated the claim as tag was not in the ear of the buffalo at the time of death and only a broken part of the tag was in the custody of the complainant. There is flaw in the case of the complainant. If the hole where the tag was affixed had become widened, the complainant should have asked the insurance company for re-tagging the buffalo but he has not done so. Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of opposite party.
8. 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:14.10.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
