District Consumer Forum, Bokaro.
Complaint Case No. 50 of 2006



Shubham Commercial Animal Farming, a partnership firm having its head office at Shivpuri colony, P.O. & P.S. Chas(Bokaro).Through its partner Sri Tarkeshwar Sing s/o late Yogendra Singh,

R/o Shivpuri Colony, Jodhadih More, P.O.& P.S. Chas,(Bokaro).

Versus

Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Natraj Mantion, Bye Pass Road, P.O. & P.S.-Chas,(Bokaro).

Before-

S.M.Alam, President

Vijay Bahadur Singh, Member
Shabnam Praveen, Member



Date of Judgment-: 28 March, 2009

Date of case filing-: 23 June, 2006.

-: Judgment:-

The complainant has filed the present case against

the opposite parties for the claim of loss of 33 pigs on account of its death from the opposite parties.

2 The brief fact of the case is that the complainant running a farm of pig at Pindrajora, Chas, Bokaro and he got loan from Union Bank of India, Bokaro Branch to the tune of Rs. 1165000/-as as per terms of the Bank loan of pig are to be insured under insurance cover and accordingly insurance policy was taken from National Insurance co. vide policy no. 18943/123 for 200 pigs. On 15.12.2005 one pig died and on 16.12.2005 two pigs died and the information was given to the insurance co. through its agent Sashi Tiwari who advised the complainant for photograph and postmortem report of dead pigs. The tag number of the dead pigs is 73813, 73844, and 73856 respectively. The complainant also handed over the signed letterhead to the Agent of the insurance as per demand of the insurance co. for settlement of claim but in spite of his repeated demand of settlement of the claim of the dead pigs which has not been settled except insurance. Again on 03.05.2006 one pig died which was also informed to the insurance co. The opposite party got inspected the pig farm and advised the complainant for providing tag to the pigs. The insurance co. had earlier given 50 tags although 200 tags were allotted. Subsequently a neither pigs also died and information was given to the insurance co. and the insurance co. examined the facts through their surveyor. When the complainant went to the opposite party for settlement of claim but the matter was not settled. However 150 tags were given to the complainant and assured the complainant to settle the claim with respect to dead pigs. Again 5 pigs died and the report was given to the insurance co. and where complainant demanded settles the claim, in stead the opposite party canceled the policy of the pig and returned the premium amount to the complainant. The opposite parties has violated the norms of insurance co. by not settled the claim of the complainant since altogether 33 pigs were dead and the market value of the 33 pigs were Rs. 300000/-. Thus the opposite parties are negligent and deficient in providing proper service to the complainant, hence they are liable to pay claim of the complainant.

3 Upon issuance of notices the opposite party appeared and filed its written statement stating therein that the present complaint is not maintainable, the complaint is also barred by law of limitation and complainant has no valid cause of action against the opposite party. However the opposite party admitted that the complainant had taken insurance policy of Pig not piglets on 18.11.2005 vide policy no. 170401/47/05/940000098 which was valid from 18.11.2005 to 17.11.2006. As per the insurance policy only cover the pigs which is above 60 to 70 Kg or more in the period of minimum 6 months and should be dully tagged at the time of taking policy but as per inspection report of Shri Ajay Kishore lall investigator it is clear that the complainant has not showed any tags in any pig or piglets to the investigator. On 21.06.2006 during the investigation all the pigs were found tagged were newly born piglets but not informed to the insurance co. for inclusion under this policy or for new policy which is not cover under the policy as such applicant is not entitled to get any claim from this opposite party insurance company. The complainant had not produced any postmortem report of dead pigs and piglets before the insurance co. to settle the claim; as such this opposite party is not liable to pay any claim to the complainant. However on 23.05.2006 the complainant written a letter to the Chief Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. to cancel the said insurance policy and returned the premium , since the above policy does not cover the piglets. The opposite party had canceled the said policy and returned Rs. 65938/- to the complainant through U.B.I. Bokaro Account on 25.05.2006 vide cheque no. 405264 of I O B, Bokaro Branch. The complainant himself admitted in his information letter he had not valid insurance policy and canceled the insurance policy, as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, hence the opposite party is not liable to pay any claim to the complainant and the present complaint case is fit to be dismissed.

4 Heard both the parties and perused the case records and documents filed by them. It is observed that the complainant had informed the opposite party Insurance Co. regarding death of 33 pigs under insurance coverage for payment of claim, as alleged in complaint petition. The insurance co. had appointed an investigator Ajay kishore Lall to investigate the matter of death of four piglets. The said investigator submitted a report dated 23.05.2006. As per the report 3 piglets were of 15 days weighing 3 K.g. and one piglet was of one month weighing 7 K.g. The insured had not informed about the new born piglets for inclusion under the existing policy or for new policy. Hence the deceased piglets were not covered under the policy, and no claim was admissible. Besides, the complainant has not filed any Postmortem Report in respect of alleged death of rest pigs. In view of the above we arrive at the conclusion that death of rest pigs is not established in absence of Postmortem Report. We, therefore, do not hold the opposite party negligent and deficient in service towards the complainant while not paying the claim. As such the opposite party the insurance co. is not held liable to pay any relief to the complainant.

5 Under the facts and circumstances of the case, no merit is found in the complaint case and same is dismissed accordingly hereby.