BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.200/13.
Date of instt.: 19.09.2013.
Date of Decision: 27.03.2015.
Sandeep Kumar son of Sh. Balwan Singh, resident of Village Geong, Tehsil and District Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office, Opposite Indira Gandhi College, Karnal Road, Kaithal, through its Branch Manager.
2. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Regd. And Head Office, 24, Whites Road, Chennai-600014.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Rajesh Uchana, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. N.S.Berwal, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he got insured his one buffalo with the Op through Deputy Director Animal Husbandry Department, Kaithal (under GOI Scheme) on 18.03.2013 for the sum of Rs.50,000/- valid upto 17.03.2014 vide policy No.110705/47/12/01/00001088 against Tatoo/Brand No.UII/51529. It is alleged that the said insured buffalo fell ill on 20.04.2013 and died on 26.04.2013. Information regarding death of insured buffalo was given to the Op. It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the death claim and submitted all the necessary documents with the Op but the Op repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 12.06.2013. The said repudiation of claim is wrong and illegal. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; estoppel; that the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint and for adjudication of which, only the civil court is the best platform; that the dead buffalo was not insured with the answering Op. In fact, the complainant wants to get a claim of insurance for a buffalo which was not insured with the answering Op. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
5. We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant got insured his one buffalo with the Op through Deputy Director Animal Husbandry Department, Kaithal (under GOI Scheme) on 18.03.2013 for the sum of Rs.50,000/- valid upto 17.03.2014 vide policy No.110705/47/12/01/00001088 against Tatoo/Brand No.UII/51529. The said insured buffalo fell ill on 20.04.2013 and died on 26.04.2013. The complainant lodged the claim with the Ops. The complainant has also placed copy of cattle claim intimation form (Ex.C5) on the file. After the information received by the Ops regarding the death of buffalo, the Ops appointed Grover Associates as surveyor. The Ops have placed the copy of surveyor report Ex.R1 on file. The surveyor has given the findings in his report that “In our opinion and on the basis of the facts of the case, ground realities, in our opinion this claim is not payable as the cattle which died is not the one which was insured as description about HORNS, AGE AND LACTATION do not tally with that of the insured buffalo with those of dead buffalo. Ld. Counsel for the OPs vehemently contends that as per surveyor report, the description of dead buffalo did not tally with the insured buffalo and health certificate. We are not fortified with the contention of ld. Counsel for the Ops. The complainant has also placed copy of cattle insurance policy (Ex.C4) and in the said policy, the buffalo bearing tag No.UII-51529 is mentioned at Sr.No.6. In the post-mortem report (Ex.C6), the tag number of dead buffalo is mentioned as UII-51529. The description and other particulars mentioned in the post-mortem report and health certificate are also tallies with each other. So, we find that the Ops have wrongly repudiated the claim of complainant and the Ops are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.
7. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay the insured amount of dead buffalo i.e. Rs.50,000/- to the complainant and further to pay Rs.2,000/- (two thousand) as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation charges. Let the order be complied within 30 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of commencement of order till its realization. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.27.03.2015.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.200/13.
Date of instt.: 19.09.2013.
Date of Decision: 27.03.2015.
Sandeep Kumar son of Sh. Balwan Singh, resident of Village Geong, Tehsil and District Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office, Opposite Indira Gandhi College, Karnal Road, Kaithal, through its Branch Manager.
2. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Regd. And Head Office, 24, Whites Road, Chennai-600014.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Rajesh Uchana, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. N.S.Berwal, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he got insured his one buffalo with the Op through Deputy Director Animal Husbandry Department, Kaithal (under GOI Scheme) on 18.03.2013 for the sum of Rs.50,000/- valid upto 17.03.2014 vide policy No.110705/47/12/01/00001088 against Tatoo/Brand No.UII/51529. It is alleged that the said insured buffalo fell ill on 20.04.2013 and died on 26.04.2013. Information regarding death of insured buffalo was given to the Op. It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the death claim and submitted all the necessary documents with the Op but the Op repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 12.06.2013. The said repudiation of claim is wrong and illegal. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; estoppel; that the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint and for adjudication of which, only the civil court is the best platform; that the dead buffalo was not insured with the answering Op. In fact, the complainant wants to get a claim of insurance for a buffalo which was not insured with the answering Op. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
5. We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant got insured his one buffalo with the Op through Deputy Director Animal Husbandry Department, Kaithal (under GOI Scheme) on 18.03.2013 for the sum of Rs.50,000/- valid upto 17.03.2014 vide policy No.110705/47/12/01/00001088 against Tatoo/Brand No.UII/51529. The said insured buffalo fell ill on 20.04.2013 and died on 26.04.2013. The complainant lodged the claim with the Ops. The complainant has also placed copy of cattle claim intimation form (Ex.C5) on the file. After the information received by the Ops regarding the death of buffalo, the Ops appointed Grover Associates as surveyor. The Ops have placed the copy of surveyor report Ex.R1 on file. The surveyor has given the findings in his report that “In our opinion and on the basis of the facts of the case, ground realities, in our opinion this claim is not payable as the cattle which died is not the one which was insured as description about HORNS, AGE AND LACTATION do not tally with that of the insured buffalo with those of dead buffalo. Ld. Counsel for the OPs vehemently contends that as per surveyor report, the description of dead buffalo did not tally with the insured buffalo and health certificate. We are not fortified with the contention of ld. Counsel for the Ops. The complainant has also placed copy of cattle insurance policy (Ex.C4) and in the said policy, the buffalo bearing tag No.UII-51529 is mentioned at Sr.No.6. In the post-mortem report (Ex.C6), the tag number of dead buffalo is mentioned as UII-51529. The description and other particulars mentioned in the post-mortem report and health certificate are also tallies with each other. So, we find that the Ops have wrongly repudiated the claim of complainant and the Ops are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.
7. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay the insured amount of dead buffalo i.e. Rs.50,000/- to the complainant and further to pay Rs.2,000/- (two thousand) as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation charges. Let the order be complied within 30 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of commencement of order till its realization. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.27.03.2015.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.200/13.
Date of instt.: 19.09.2013.
Date of Decision: 27.03.2015.
Sandeep Kumar son of Sh. Balwan Singh, resident of Village Geong, Tehsil and District Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office, Opposite Indira Gandhi College, Karnal Road, Kaithal, through its Branch Manager.
2. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Regd. And Head Office, 24, Whites Road, Chennai-600014.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Rajesh Uchana, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. N.S.Berwal, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he got insured his one buffalo with the Op through Deputy Director Animal Husbandry Department, Kaithal (under GOI Scheme) on 18.03.2013 for the sum of Rs.50,000/- valid upto 17.03.2014 vide policy No.110705/47/12/01/00001088 against Tatoo/Brand No.UII/51529. It is alleged that the said insured buffalo fell ill on 20.04.2013 and died on 26.04.2013. Information regarding death of insured buffalo was given to the Op. It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the death claim and submitted all the necessary documents with the Op but the Op repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 12.06.2013. The said repudiation of claim is wrong and illegal. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; estoppel; that the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint and for adjudication of which, only the civil court is the best platform; that the dead buffalo was not insured with the answering Op. In fact, the complainant wants to get a claim of insurance for a buffalo which was not insured with the answering Op. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
5. We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant got insured his one buffalo with the Op through Deputy Director Animal Husbandry Department, Kaithal (under GOI Scheme) on 18.03.2013 for the sum of Rs.50,000/- valid upto 17.03.2014 vide policy No.110705/47/12/01/00001088 against Tatoo/Brand No.UII/51529. The said insured buffalo fell ill on 20.04.2013 and died on 26.04.2013. The complainant lodged the claim with the Ops. The complainant has also placed copy of cattle claim intimation form (Ex.C5) on the file. After the information received by the Ops regarding the death of buffalo, the Ops appointed Grover Associates as surveyor. The Ops have placed the copy of surveyor report Ex.R1 on file. The surveyor has given the findings in his report that “In our opinion and on the basis of the facts of the case, ground realities, in our opinion this claim is not payable as the cattle which died is not the one which was insured as description about HORNS, AGE AND LACTATION do not tally with that of the insured buffalo with those of dead buffalo. Ld. Counsel for the OPs vehemently contends that as per surveyor report, the description of dead buffalo did not tally with the insured buffalo and health certificate. We are not fortified with the contention of ld. Counsel for the Ops. The complainant has also placed copy of cattle insurance policy (Ex.C4) and in the said policy, the buffalo bearing tag No.UII-51529 is mentioned at Sr.No.6. In the post-mortem report (Ex.C6), the tag number of dead buffalo is mentioned as UII-51529. The description and other particulars mentioned in the post-mortem report and health certificate are also tallies with each other. So, we find that the Ops have wrongly repudiated the claim of complainant and the Ops are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.
7. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay the insured amount of dead buffalo i.e. Rs.50,000/- to the complainant and further to pay Rs.2,000/- (two thousand) as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation charges. Let the order be complied within 30 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of commencement of order till its realization. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.27.03.2015.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.200/13.
Date of instt.: 19.09.2013.
Date of Decision: 27.03.2015.
Sandeep Kumar son of Sh. Balwan Singh, resident of Village Geong, Tehsil and District Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office, Opposite Indira Gandhi College, Karnal Road, Kaithal, through its Branch Manager.
2. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Regd. And Head Office, 24, Whites Road, Chennai-600014.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Rajesh Uchana, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. N.S.Berwal, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he got insured his one buffalo with the Op through Deputy Director Animal Husbandry Department, Kaithal (under GOI Scheme) on 18.03.2013 for the sum of Rs.50,000/- valid upto 17.03.2014 vide policy No.110705/47/12/01/00001088 against Tatoo/Brand No.UII/51529. It is alleged that the said insured buffalo fell ill on 20.04.2013 and died on 26.04.2013. Information regarding death of insured buffalo was given to the Op. It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the death claim and submitted all the necessary documents with the Op but the Op repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 12.06.2013. The said repudiation of claim is wrong and illegal. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; estoppel; that the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint and for adjudication of which, only the civil court is the best platform; that the dead buffalo was not insured with the answering Op. In fact, the complainant wants to get a claim of insurance for a buffalo which was not insured with the answering Op. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
5. We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant got insured his one buffalo with the Op through Deputy Director Animal Husbandry Department, Kaithal (under GOI Scheme) on 18.03.2013 for the sum of Rs.50,000/- valid upto 17.03.2014 vide policy No.110705/47/12/01/00001088 against Tatoo/Brand No.UII/51529. The said insured buffalo fell ill on 20.04.2013 and died on 26.04.2013. The complainant lodged the claim with the Ops. The complainant has also placed copy of cattle claim intimation form (Ex.C5) on the file. After the information received by the Ops regarding the death of buffalo, the Ops appointed Grover Associates as surveyor. The Ops have placed the copy of surveyor report Ex.R1 on file. The surveyor has given the findings in his report that “In our opinion and on the basis of the facts of the case, ground realities, in our opinion this claim is not payable as the cattle which died is not the one which was insured as description about HORNS, AGE AND LACTATION do not tally with that of the insured buffalo with those of dead buffalo. Ld. Counsel for the OPs vehemently contends that as per surveyor report, the description of dead buffalo did not tally with the insured buffalo and health certificate. We are not fortified with the contention of ld. Counsel for the Ops. The complainant has also placed copy of cattle insurance policy (Ex.C4) and in the said policy, the buffalo bearing tag No.UII-51529 is mentioned at Sr.No.6. In the post-mortem report (Ex.C6), the tag number of dead buffalo is mentioned as UII-51529. The description and other particulars mentioned in the post-mortem report and health certificate are also tallies with each other. So, we find that the Ops have wrongly repudiated the claim of complainant and the Ops are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.
7. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay the insured amount of dead buffalo i.e. Rs.50,000/- to the complainant and further to pay Rs.2,000/- (two thousand) as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation charges. Let the order be complied within 30 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of commencement of order till its realization. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.27.03.2015.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
