Haryana

Kaithal

CC/16/2022

Resham Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.S.C Walia

16 Aug 2023

ORDER

                           

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.16/2022.

                                                     Date of institution: 18.01.2022.

                                                     Date of decision:16.08.2023.

Resham Singh son of Sh. Joginder Singh, aged 38 years, resident of Village Habri, Tehsil Pundri, District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, Ambala Road, Kaithal, through its Branch Manager.
2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Division Office, N.H. R/2, near Badshah Khan Chowk N.17 Faridabad (Haryana).
3. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Head Office 87 M.G.Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 through its Managing Director.

….OPs.

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. S.C.Walia, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Nikhil Gupta, Advocate for the OPs.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Resham Singh-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that in the month of August, 2019 the complainant got insured his three mulching cows with the OPs valid for the period w.e.f. 22.08.2019 to 21.08.2020 and tag No.160016812150, 160016812161 and 160049037017 were given to the aforesaid cows which were insured for the sum of Rs.40,000/-, Rs.35,000/- and Rs.40,000/- respectively.  The case of complainant is that out of the above-said three mulching cows, one cow bearing tag No.160049037017 died on 08.02.2020.  Information regarding death of cow was given to the OPs.  The Post-mortem of said cow was got conducted by the Veterinary Surgeon on the same day.  The complainant got lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents but the OPs did not settle the claim of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  On merits, it is stated that after receiving intimation qua the death of said cow, claim was duly processed and paid to complainant vide NEFT Transaction Reference No.682218667999964 dt. 09.03.2022 of Rs.40,000/- towards full and final settlement of the claim.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C4 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             It is clear that during the pendency of present complaint i.e. on 10.01.2023, the complainant has made statement to the effect that he has received the claim amount of Rs.40,000/- from the OPs on 09.03.2022 vide NEFT Transaction Reference No.682218667999964.  The complainant has prayed for compensation as he has been dragged by the OPs into unwanted litigation.  On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OPs has vehemently contended that due to Pandemic Covid-19 Whole World was closed.  Everyone was following the “Law of Survival” and had forgotten the technicalities of life during the unpleasant time.  He has further contended that upon receipt of notice issued by this Commission, the OPs appeared in the present case on 03.03.2022 and only after 6 days, they have made the payment to the complainant.  He has further contended that the complainant has not issued any legal notice prior to filing of present complaint.  We find force in the submissions of ld. counsel for the OPs.  From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the payment of Rs.40,000/- has already been made to the complainant as mentioned above.  So, nothing remains more to be adjudicated in the present complaint.  Hence, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OPs. 

7.             Thus, as a sequel of aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.  There is no order as to costs.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:16.08.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.