Haryana

StateCommission

A/169/2017

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

VINOD KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

P.M.GOYAL

27 Apr 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    169 of 2017

Date of Institution:    14.02.2017

Date of Decision :     27.04.2017

 

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company limited, Regional Office # Block No.04, 7^th Floor, DLF Tower 15, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi-110015 through its Regional Manager.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

Versus

 

1.      Vinod s/o Sh. Shamsher Singh, Resident of Village Karontha, Tehsil and District Rohtak.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

2.      Haryana Gramin Bank Village Karontha, District Rohtak through its Manager.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.2

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

 

Argued by:          Shri Hitender Kansal, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

        Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party No.1, is in appeal against the order dated December 23^rd, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Vinod-complainant seeking compensation on account of death of his insured buffalo, was allowed. The Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing complaint, that is, July 13^th, 2015 till its realization and Rs.3500/- litigation expenses.

2.                By raising loan from Haryana Gramin Bank-Opposite Party No.2, the complainant purchased ten cattle (buffaloes and cows) and got the same insured with the Insurance Company for the period August 8^th, 2012 to August 7^th, 2015.  The total sum insured was Rs.5.00 lacs. One of the insured buffaloes, bearing Tag No.NIC-087512, died on November 26^th, 2014 due to illness. The complainant informed the Insurance Company. Postmortem examination of the buffalo was conducted vide Post Mortem Report Exhibit CW-4.  The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company. The Surveyor/Investigator of the Insurance Company investigated the matter and submitted report Annexure A-2 observing as under:-

                   “Conclusion

As per our investigation and finding above, we are of the opinion that the death of insured cattle having Ear Tag No.NIC-87512 on 26.11.2014 is genuine fact. Hence, the claim is payable and payment shall be made in favour of financer.”

3.                Instead of paying the insured amount, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim vide letter dated March 09^th, 2015 (Annexure A-1) on the ground that Tag No.NIC-87512 was allotted to a cow and not to the deceased buffalo. Aggrieved thereof, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

4.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint and issued direction to the Insurance Company as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

5.                Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has urged that Tag No.NIC-87512 was allotted to a cow and not to the deceased buffalo. So, the Insurance Company is not liable to any compensation to the complainant.

6.                This Commission does not concur with the submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. Indisputably, the complainant had purchased ten cattle including the deceased buffalo after raising loan from the Haryana Gramin Bank and got them insured with the Insurance Company. It is also not in dispute that at the time of issuing the insurance policy, tags were inserted in the ears of the insured cattle. It is established on the record that a buffalo of the complainant died due to illness. Postmortem examination was conducted by a Government Veterinary Surgeon and at that time Tag No.NIC-87512 was found in an ear of the deceased buffalo as mentioned in the Post Mortem Report (Exhibit CW-4). It is not the case of the Insurance Company that there was any tampering with the tag. Meaning thereby, the tag was inserted at the time of issuing the Insurance Policy.  The Investigator of the Insurance Company in his report (Annexure A-2) has clearly observed that the death of the insured buffalo, bearing Ear Tag No.NIC-87512, was genuine and the claim is payable. This being so, the Insurance Company cannot be absolved from its liability to pay the insured amount to the complainant on account of death of the insured buffalo. The impugned order does not require any interference.

7.                In view of the above, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

8.                The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 27.04.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL