State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. vs Smt. Sunita Gupta And Anr. on 1 August, 2011
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
(A/11/2436)
Appeal No.155/2011
Instituted on : 04/03/2011
The New India Assurance Company Limited,
SADA Complex, Transport Nagar, Korba (C.G.)
Through : Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office No.1, Jail Road,
Post & District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant
Vs.
1. Smt. Sunita Gupta, W/o Shri Rajesh Gupta,
R/o : Mahabirpur & Bramha Road, Thana-Jainagar,
Ambikapur, Tehsil - Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.)
2. Branch Manager,
Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank,
Branch - Fundurdihari,
Ambikapur, Dist. Surguja (C.G.) .... Respondents
PRESENT :
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SMT. VEENA MISRA, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri P.K. Paul, for appellant.
Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for respondent No.1.
Shri Bhupendra Jain, for respondent No.2.
ORDER (ORAL)
DATED : 01/08/2011 PER :- HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 31/01/2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) in Complaint // 2 // Case No.55/2009, whereby the complaint of the complainant/respondent No.1 against the appellant/Insurance Company, alleging deficiency in service in not paying the sum assured on account of death of the insured cattle, has been allowed and the appellant/Insurance Company, has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. w.e.f. date of filing of complaint till date of payment and also to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.500/- as cost of litigation to the complainant/respondent No.1.
2. In nutshell, the facts of the case are that, complainant/respondent No.1 with the help of finance provided by respondent No.2/Bank, purchased a cow, which was insured by the appellant herein and a tag was attached in the ear of the cattle which was provided to the concerning Veterinary Surgeon by the Insurance Company for the purpose of identification of the cattle. Later on, cattle died on 21.10.2008, then a claim was preferred by the complainant/respondent No.1 before the Insurance Company, which was not allowed on the basis of Report of one Dr. R.K. Tiwari, Investigator. The tag which was sent by the complainant/respondent No.1 to the Insurance Company along with claim form, was examined by him through Microscope and it was found that the tag was not used in the ear of the cattle during its lifetime and therefore, the Insurance // 3 // Company came to the conclusion that the cattle was not insured by it and repudiated the claim of the complainant/respondent No.1. Then, a consumer complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Forum, in reply of which the appellant/Insurance Company has taken the same defence.
3. Learned District Forum after having considered the material placed before it by all parties, has not agreed with the defence taken by the Insurance Company and allowed the complaint.
4. After having heard the arguments advanced by all parties and after having gone through the record of the District Forum, we do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same on the following reasons.
5. The policy, which was issued by the appellant/Insurance Company, was in respect of the she buffalo of the complainant/respondent No.1 and the Tag No. of the tag, which was applied to the cattle for the purpose of its identification, is mentioned in the policy as No.40633/UII. The Certificate of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, which is available in the record of the District Forum, shows that at the time of insurance of the cattle, the cattle was found healthy by the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon and the same tag was fixed in the ear of the insured cattle. Later on when the cattle // 4 // died, then the incident was firstly reported to the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, who conducted post mortem of the dead animal and vide Report available at Page No.50 in the record of the District Forum, found that Tag No.40633/UII was there in its ear and cattle died. Apart from it, a Panchnama prepared by the villagers bearing signature of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat and Up Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, in respect of death of insured cattle is also available in the record of the District Forum. In that Panchnama also, it has been specifically mentioned that Tag No.40633 was there in the ear of the deceased cattle.
6. Thus, there is direct evidence available in the record to prove that at the time of insurance, a particular number of tag was attached in the ear of the cattle and when the cattle died, then the same tag was found by the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon as well as many other independent persons, in the ear of the dead cattle.
7. The appellant/Insurance Company has placed reliance upon the report of Investigator namely Dr. R.K. Tiwari, who was appointed by the appellant/Insurance Company to investigate the claim of the complainant/respondent No.1. The letter head of Dr. R.K. Tiwari, shows that he is retired Deputy Director (Veterinary) and at present is working as Insurance Investigator and providing service to the appellant/Insurance Company. From this letter head, it appears that // 5 // he has not been duly registered anywhere as Surveyor or Loss Assessor. It appears that he is simply working in his private capacity. In his Report, he has stated that the ear tag which was sent to him was examined by him and it was observed that there was no any sign on the basis of which it can be said that it was used in the ear of the alive animal. On the basis of this finding, he has recorded his opinion that the tag was applied in the ear after death of the cattle.
8. We are not prepared to give any importance to this Report of Dr. R.K. Tiwari firstly because he has not been registered as Surveyor or Loss Assessor by any competent body, secondly there appears nothing on the basis of which, it can be said that he has examined the ear tag in any laboratory having the facility of all necessary equipments for physical and chemical tests and tag was examined by any competent person, who has been duly authorized for that purpose by the Government or by any Body constituted by the Government. It appears that he is in the employment of the appellant/Insurance Company and has given this Report simply to serve the interest of the appellant/Insurance Company. This Report can not be given much importance over the Report of Government Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, who has applied the tag in the ear of cattle and later on found it in the ear of the deceased cattle and the Panchnama prepared by the villagers bearing signatures of independent persons, Sarpanch of // 6 // Gram Panchayat & Up Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, who have certified that the tag was found by them in the ear of the deceased animal.
9. Thus, the appeal has got no substance and is hereby dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice S.C.Vyas) (Smt.Veena Misra) (V.K. Patil)
President Member Member
/08/2011 /08/2011 /08/2011