State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Swaran Singh vs National Insurance Company Ltd. on 3 February, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37A, CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1971 OF 2010
Date of Institution: 18.11.2010
Date of Decision: 03.02.2014
Swaran Singh s/o Amar Singh r/o Gali Hatimtai, Gate Hakiman,
Amritsar.
.....Appellant/Complainant
VERSUS
1. National Insurance Company Ltd., through Branch Manager,
National Insurance Co.Ltd., 103 Lawrence Road, Amritsar.
2. Chief Executive Officer cum Director Animal Husbandry
Punjab live stock development 17 bays building Board, Sector
17, Chandigarh.
.....Respondents/Opposite Parties
First Appeal against the order
dated 4.10.2010 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Quorum:
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Sh. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:
For the appellant : Sh.A.P.S.Luna, Advocate
For respondent No.1 : Sh.B.S.Taunque, Advocate
For respondent No.2 : None
BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant against the order dated 4.10.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short "District Forum"), vide which his complaint against the respondents/opposite parties was dismissed.
2. The facts, as stated in the complaint, are that the complainant got his buffalo insured with opposite party No.1 against tag No.NIC- First Appeal No. 1971 of 2010 Page 2 of 5 44044. The said buffalo participated in a competition held by Director, Animal Husbandry, Punjab Live Stock Development Board and got an award of Rs.1,000/- for a yield of 20 kg of milk/day. Unfortunately, the buffalo died o 5.4.2007. Its post mortem was duly conducted by Veterinary Officer, Civil Veterinary Hospital, Hathi Gate, Amritsar. Thereafter, a claim was lodged with opposite party No.1 for reimbursement of the amount of Rs.20,000/- by submitting all relevant papers including Post Mortem Report, Valuation Certificate, Certificate issued by Sarpanch etc. but it did not settle the claim. Finding no alternative with him, he filed complaint No.792 of 2007 on 12.12.2007 before the District Forum which was disposed of on 24.6.2008 with the direction to opposite party No.1 to settle the claim of the complainant within two months on the receipt of documents, including ear tag of the buffalo and completion of the formalities. Thereafter, the complainant again submitted all the documents. He also moved an application on 17.9.2008 before the District Forum to return the original tag No.44044. The same was, however, lost by him on 31.10.2009 while he was going in Indra Colony and a DDR No.25 dated 31.10.2009 was lodged with the P.S. 'C' Division, Amritsar, copy of which was also submitted to the opposite parties. Thereafter, opposite party No.1 was bound to settle the claim but it was delaying the matter without any reason which amounted to deficiency in service. Hence, he filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking directions to opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.20,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from 5.4.2007 First Appeal No. 1971 of 2010 Page 3 of 5 till payment. Compensation to the tune of Rs.30,000/- alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- were also prayed.
3. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written reply admitting that earlier complaint, filed by the complainant on 12.12.2007, was disposed of by the District Forum with the directions to the complainant to submit complete documents, including ear tag of that buffalo. It averred that his claim could not be settled due to non- compliance of the directions of the District Forum by him. He failed to do so for over one year. Thereafter, original tag was reported to have been lost on 31.10.2009 after more than a year of the said order though he was required to submit the same immediately. No explanation has been given as to why he kept the tag with him for so long. Denying all other allegations, dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
4. Opposite party No.2 also filed written reply pleading that there was no cause of action against it as the complainant was not its consumer. Denying all other allegations, dismissal of the complaint against him was prayed.
5. The parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents and the District Forum, after going through that evidence dismissed the complaint.
6. Aggrieved by this order, the complainant has come up in appeal on the ground that opposite party No.1 has failed to pay the claim of Rs.20,000/- even though he filed all papers. It was specifically directed by the District Forum on 24.6.2008 to settle the claim within First Appeal No. 1971 of 2010 Page 4 of 5 two months. The tag was lost and the same could not be submitted to opposite party No.1. It has been wrongly concluded by the District Forum that dismissal of the complaint was justified on this ground alone. The death of the animal was not disputed and the ear tag was produced before the District Forum before the same was lost. It was also produced before the doctor at the time of post mortem. Moreover its loss was reported to the police and a DDR was lodged, copy of which was also supplied to the opposite parties. Accordingly, acceptance of the appeal, setting aside of the impugned order and allowing of the complaint was prayed.
7. We have thoroughly gone through the pleadings of the parties and have carefully perused the evidence on record.
8. The case of the complainant is that his buffalo, which was insured by opposite party No.1, died on 5.4.2007 and he submitted all the claim papers with it but his insurance claim was not settled. Admittedly, the complainant has failed to submit the ear tag No.44044 to opposite party No.1 despite the specific directions by the District Forum to do so immediately. After receiving the tag from the District Forum, he kept it with him for over one year while the directions were to submit the same to the opposite parties immediately. No justification is given by him for this inordinate delay. Thereafter he lodged DDR with the P.S. 'C' Division, Amritsar on 31.10.2009 about its having been lost. The contention of the complainant that he produced the ear tag at the time of post mortem is also found baseless. This ear tag was supposed to be existing in the ear of the animal when First Appeal No. 1971 of 2010 Page 5 of 5 the same died on 5.4.2007. The post mortem report has been proved by the complainant as Ex.C-7, in which the doctor, who conducted the post mortem, has mentioned that ear-tag was found missing. The certificate of the Sarpach (Ex.C-11) is not an authentic proof of the death of the insured animal. It could only be identified from the ear- tag put in the ear of the animal at the time of insurance for the identification purposes. Thus, it cannot be said that the dead animal was identified as the insured animal. In the absence of such proof, non-settlement of claim is justified.
9. In view of the above said discussion and findings, the appeal of the appellant/complainant is dismissed and the impugned order of the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.
10. The arguments in the case were heard on 15.1.2014 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
11. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period because of the heavy pendency of the court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER (SURINDER PAL KAUR) MEMBER February 03, 2014 VINAY