District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.512/2021.
Date of Institution: 29.09.2021.
Date of Order: 16.11.2022.
Bhagirath aged about 33 years S/o Shri Udan Singh R/o village Nahawali, P.O.Panhera Khurd, Tehsil Ballabgarh, district Faridabad.
Adhaar card No. 325078961356.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office: NH-5/R-2, B.K.Chowk, NIT, Faridabad – 121001 through its Divisional/Branch Manager/Principal Officer.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Kr. Udayvir Singh Bhati, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Anuj Gupta, counsel for opposite party.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was owner of five buffalos and the complainant came to know about the insurance scheme for animals of the opposite party and hence, the complainant approached the opposite party to get his buffalos insured under said scheme HLDB/NLM (Risk Management/Beema) vide Sr. NO. 14811 on 29.12.2019 for his said five buffalos and the complainant had paid the premium of Rs.700/- vide transaction ID P2001231145382213710410 and gave Tag Number/value as under:-
Tag No. Insured Value
160017247313 Rs.75,000/-
160030254566 Rs.75,000.-
160030254863 Rs.55,000/-
160017247186 Rs.75,000/-
160017247336 Rs.15,000/-
At the time providing policies, the said buffalos were duly physically checked by Veterinary Surgeon, Incharge G.V.H., Mohna, Faridabad, Haryana and found completely fit. The agent/executive of the opposite party also issued the certificate of policy on receipt of the premium. The said policy was valid form 29.12.2019 to 28.11.2020 vide policy cover note NO. 148144. Unfortunately, one buffalo (tag No. 160017247186) died due to Trypanusoma Evansi (Sura Disease) on 17.06.2020. The complainant duly informed the opposite party to this regard and representative of the opposite party visited the spot and checked the dead body of the said buffalo and also snapped the photos. The complainant also informed the Veterinary Surgeon and who conducted the postmortem of said buffalo vide post mortem report No. 75025 on 17.06.2020. The complainant lodged his claim in writing with the opposite party vide Livestock Claim Form on 17.06.2020. At that time, the opposite party assured the complainant that after some quarries, the claim amount would be disbursed in favour of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite party and submitted all the requisite documents as demanded by the opposite party and requested to disburse the claimed amount, but the officials of the opposite party always avoided the matter on one pretext or the other and did not disburse the claimed amount to the complainant till date. The complainant was legally entitled to receive the claim in respect of the death of insured buffalo. The complainant sent legal notice dated 03.09.2021 to the opposite party but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) disburse the claimed amount of Rs.75,000/- (i.e. cost of insured buffalo as assessed by the opposite party) with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of death of buffalo till actual realization.
b) pay a sum of Rs.700/- per day as loss of earnings, as the said buffalo was giving 13 liters milk daily.
c) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
d) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the present complaint was wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in eyes of law, in absence of valid and effective insurance policy, l absence of any insurable interest with carcass in question at the time of alleged death of animal in question, complainant cannot be termed as consumer of answering opposite party. The complainant had not placed on record any insurance policy issued by answering opposite party covering the carcass in question. Hence, in absence of valid and effective insurance policy and absence of insurable interest no liability to satisfy award/order directing the answering opposite party to pay any amount to the complainant if any passed in this case can be fastened upon the answering opposite party. The name of the answering opposite party was liable to be deleted from the array of complaint being unnecessary party and heavy cost be imposed upon the complainant for unnecessary dragging the answering opposite party in the present complaint, knowingly very well that at the time of alleged death of animal in question, carcass in question was not insured with the answering opposite party. The complainant had not come before this Hon’ble Commission with clean hands and had concealed various true, vital, material and correct facts from this Hon’ble Commission, such as in para No.2 of the complaint, complainant had averted insurance vide Sr. NO. 14811 but at the same time no such document had been placed on file by complainant. The impugned so called policy cover note No. 148144 was merely Health Certificate proposal form did not bear any seal, signature of any official of opposite party even the person who had allegedly signed the same had not been impleaded as party in present complaint. Only after receipt of respective share of insurance policy form the owner of animal, Govt. of India and the State (HLDB) an insurance policy can be underwrite after compliance of Section 64 V.B. of the Insurance Act and risk start to commence only after generation and issuance of an insurance policy. The complainant had no locus standi & cause of action to file the present complainant against the answering opposite party, it was submitted that in absence of valid and effective insurance policy issued by answering opposite party, complainant had no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint and against the answering opposite party.The complaint of the complainant was not maintainable against the answering opposite party, the proceedings initiated by the complainant were no nest, null, void and without jurisdiction. It was submitted that the complainant had approached the Hon’ble Commission and answering opposite party was disputing the claim on ground of absence of insurable interest and no insurance policy was issued, since the case involved disputed questions of facts and law , hence the same could not decided in summary manner, therefore, this Hon’ble Commission had absolutely no jurisdiction to decide the dispute. Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party – The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. with the prayer to: a) disburse the claimed amount of Rs.75,000/- (i.e. cost of insured buffalo as assessed by the opposite party) with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of death of buffalo till actual realization. b) pay a sum of Rs.700/- per day as loss of earnings, as the said buffalo was giving 13 liters milk daily. c)pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . d) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Shri Bhagirath complainant, Ex.C-1 – policy code note No. 148144 valid from 29.12.2019 to 28.11.2020, Ex.C2 – Post Mortem Report, Ex.C3 – Livestock Claim Form, Ex.C4 – legal notice,Ex.C-5 – postal receipt, Ex.C-6 – Certificate of surveyor., Ex.C-7 – Intimation letter, Ex.C-8 – Transaction successful.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and
opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Shashi Prakash, Sr. Divisional Manager/Duly Constituted Attorney of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., NIT, Faridabad.
6. The complaint was filed by the complainant with the prayer for the death of buffalo with the IDV value of Rs.75,000/-.. To prove his case, the complainant has filed Ex.C1 to C8 in his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party argued at length and agitated with the evidence led by the complainant. First of all, he argued point No1 regarding NO Policy. In this regard, he argued at length that the complainant has failed to establish his case that he has not any insurance policy. As per Ex.C1, policy bearing No. 148144 has been mentioned in the proposal form not the cover note and also argued about the Krishan Gopal who is not the agent of insurance policy, only there is a stamp of POS Code HR/FAR03. He is not the approved agent of IRDA of our company. In this regard, the complainant is failed to prove that Shri Krishan Gopal is the agent of the company to fix the vicarious liability. Ex.C1 speaks itself that it is a proposal form, not cover note of the policy. It is ridiculous when Krishan Gopal POS Code HR/FAR/03 vide Ex.C2 is not the agent of the company then no need for the certificate of Krishan Gopal. As per Livestock Claim Form vide Ex.C3 the policy No. 148144 valid from 29.12.19 to 28.11.2020 was mentioned. As per Livestock Claim Form vide Ex.C3 in page No.2, the Tatoo No. 160017 and identification mark No. 247186 does not match with the insurance policy and also page No2 of Ex.C3 regarding Bank’s certificate is blank at the bottom in which neither the form is filled by the bank nor kept any signature on the same. As per the complaint of the complainant in para No.2 the complainant has mentioned the risk management/bema vide sr. No. 14811 on 29.12.2019 for his five bufflos. He has failed to prove the insurance policy and the cover note and the tag policy. There are mismatch of the cover note number and some where in page No.2 of the complaint are mentioned cover note No. 14811. Counsel for the opposite party
take objection in para No.4 and preliminary objection No.2 that the complainant is not insured with opposite party i.e insurance company. It is evident from Ex.C6 which is certificate of Anil Kumar Jain, who is the Automobile Engineer as per letter head submitted by the complainant that he is not the technical person of anywhere. At the time of his certification, the report was sent to HIBL, New Delhi vide Ex.C6.
7. After going through the receipt of payment vide Ex.C-8, Rs.700/- was paid to the insurance company. The complainant has failed to prove his case vide Ex.C8 on the message column i.e.” Gvh Mohna cover note 148144,148146”. There is no match of cover note No.148144. Counsel for the opposite party argued some arguable points which goes in favour of the opposite party i.e insurance company. Hence, there is no merit in this case. Resultantly, the complaint is dismissed. Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 16.11.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
