Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/102/2016

Brij Bhusan - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Dhiraj Sehajpal, Sukhdeep Singh

05 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR. 

 

Consumer Complaint No    :   102 of 08.11.2016 

Date of Decision                :   05.03.2018

Brij Bhusan son of Romesh Kumar Resident of Mohalla Gujratian, Rahon Tehsil Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar.

                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

1. United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Nawanshahr through its Manager, Branch Office Nawanshahr, Banga Road Nawanshahr District SBS Nagar.
2. United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Manager, Division Office, SCO 72, Phase 9, Mohali.

Opposite parties

Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:         

S.A.P.S. RAJPUT, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

For Complainants                   :         Sh.Dhiraj Sehajpal, Advocate

For OPs                         :         Sh. P.K Dhir, Advocate

 

ORDER 

PER S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

1. This complaint filed by complainant under Section 11 R/W Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.  Further, it is averred that complainant is progressive Dairy Farmer and rear milch cattle for the purpose of his livelihood and also for his family.  The income generated from the dairy farming is source of income of complainant.  Complainant has got insured his buffalo on 27.10.2014 and paid the premium of insurance.  The buffalo was assigned token No.81095 beside other features of the animal as mentioned in the health certificate filled by representative of OPs. About 10 KG of mil was yield from said buffalo and she was 7 years of age and she had conceived for about 5/6 months.  Unfortunately, the insured cattle died on 04.03.2015 at 9:10 AM.  On the death of animal, immediate information was given to officer of OP.  On surveyor appointed by OPs namely Sh.Santokh Singh Mann who visited the spot on same day and verified the toek number, other features of the dead buffalo with that of buffalo insured with OPs.  The surveyor had assessed the value of the buffalo amounting to Rs.40,000/- though it was of much more value as she was pregnant of 4-5 months.  Complainant has suffered immense loss as he is devoid of earning of one cattle of about 10 Kg milk per day from last about one year.  The loss is attributed to lackadaisical attitude of OPs.  Complainant has contacted with the official of OPs and asked to pay the assured amount but OPs have failed to do so and refused for the same. As such, OPs are negligence and deficient in consumer service.    Lastly prayer has been made that OPs be directed to pay a sum of requisite amount i.e. insured amount of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest to the complainant.  It is further prayed that OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental and physical harassment caused to complainants.    
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and  accordingly OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable.  This Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the case. Complainant has not come with clean hands and suppressed the true and material facts.  OP-2 had repudiated the claim of complainant on this ground that dead buffalo and insured buffalo and beast/animal are different.  Complainant has go no cause of action. On merits, it is admitted that OP-2 had insured the buffalo vide policy/cover note No.112100/47/14/01/00000332 for the period from 31.10.2014 to 30.10.2015 with tag No.81095.  It is also admitted that buffalo died on 04.03.2015 but the insured buffalo and died buffalo are different beast/animal.  On information, Insurance Company deputed Santosh Singh Mann as investigator and he visited Rahon on 04.03.2015 for spot verification of death of buffalo belonging to complainant.  Again OP-1 deputed Dr.S.C. Anejaas investigator for reinvestigation report of buffalo who reinvestigate the case and gave complete report that dead claimed buffalo and live insured buffalo are not matching with each other. The claim has been lodged for non-insured buffalo.  The horns of the buffalo insured were openly curved while the horns of claimed dead buffalo are closely curved.  The body coat of claimed buffalo is densely hairy whereas insured buffalo had hairless body.  The insured animal, under policy had not died and wrong claim has been lodged by the insured by showing another dead buffalo for claim.  He also taken 11 photographs of dead buffalo.  As per his opinion buffalo died and buffalo insured are two different buffaloes with different age group phenotypically the claimed buffalo is younger then insured one.  The whole makeup is not matching, the horns of insured  buffalo are widely curved and these are at distance from the head and as per health certificate, claimed dead buffalo horns are closely curved and touching the body of head as shown in picture-B.  Further claim of complainant rightly repudiated by OP-1, because the complainant has lodged the false claim of the dead animal which is not insured with OP-1.  Moreover, on 05.11.2015 D.O. Mohali had written a repudiation letter to complainant.  Rest of the averments have been denied by OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
3. In order to prove complaint, counsel for the complainant, tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 alongwith notice dated 18.02.2016 Ex.C2, postal receipt Ex.C-3, copy of spot verification Ex.C-4, health certificate Ex.C5, copy of notice dated 10.03.2015 Ex.C-6, copy of report dated 04.03.2015 Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence.   Similarly, counsel for OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Ashok Kumar Manager UIIC – Hoshiarpur Ex.OPA alongwith photocopies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-19 and then closed the evidence.
4. We have heard counsel for the parties and also gone through the case file very carefully.
5. During arguments, the contention of counsel for the complainant is that complainant has got insured his buffalo on 27.10.2014 and insured buffalo died on 04.03.2015 at 9:10 AM, after that immediate information was given to office of OPs.  Complainant had contacted with OPs and asked to pay the insured amount but the OPs have failed to do so.  OPs are negligence and deficient in consumer services.  On the other hand, counsel for OPs has more concentration on Ex.OP1 dated 05.11.2015 and Ex.OP2 expert re-investigation opinion.  Secondly, he brought the attention on Ex.OP-16 to Ex.OP-19.  We have gone through the entire record file very minutely and examine the documentary evidence of the parties.  As per Ex.C-15 dated 27.10.2014, the age of buffalo was 7 years, ear tag of died buffalo is 81095, colour black, FH Black, horns open widely and as per repudiation letter Ex.OP-1 dated 05.11.2015, the OPs remarks as per clause-1 that insured animal and the dead animal not same.  As per Ex.OP-2 – expert reinvestigation opinion made by Dr.S.C. Aneja it is described that in picture “A” insured buffalo shown horns widely curved not touching head & hairless body coat and in Ex.OP-17 picture “B” shown closely curved horns of claimed buffalo touching head and hairy skin and Ex.OP-18 Picture-“C” body coat of insured is Hair less horns are widely curve tip away from skull and Ex.OP-19 Picture “D” shown hairy body coat of claimed buffalo.  To trace out the truth from the bottom in the light of Ex.C-16 to Ex.C-19 we have examined the a pivotal role.  “A man can lie but the document can’t”.  The horns of the claimed dead buffalo and live insured buffalo are different.  Moreover, the body hairy coat of the claimed dead buffalo are not similar with the insured buffalo.  This prima facie factum also support he Ex.OP2 – expert reinvestigation opinion.  Furthermore, Ex.OP-12 and Ex.OP-19 the owner of the insured buffalo and claimed buffalo is not the same person. 
6. Resultantly, we have considered view that complainant has been miserably failed to prove his case from all angles and complainant not come into this Forum with clean hands.  Moreover, complainant neither examined his own expert nor rebut the expert of Ex.OP-2 during arguments. Therefore, complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed.
7. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
8. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.
9. File be indexed and consigned to record. 

Dated 05.03.2018                                                         

 

(Kanwaljeet Singh)                (A.P.S. Rajput)

Member                                  President