Back
2008(1) CPR 197
UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
K.C. Gupta, President; Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor(Retd.), Member
Sh. Harbans Lal —Appellant
versus
United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. —Respondents
Appeal No. 724 of 2007
Decided on 28.11.2007
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Sh. Arun Bakshi, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1:Sh. Hitesh Sood, Proxy for Sh. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
District Forum erred in ignoring post-mortem report of veterinary doctor who has also filed an affidavit which affirms averments made in the post-mortem report.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15 and 2(1)(g) and(o) —Deficiency in service—Insurance—Appellant’s cow insured with respondent No. 1 died on 16.9.2003—After getting post-mortem report claim was filed with Insurance Company—Respondent No. 1 repudiated the claim—Complaint filed in District Forum—Respondent No. 1 contended that complainant had filed fraudulent claim by dragging some dead cow to his cattle shed—District Forum dismissed the complaint—Challenged—Held, District Forum erred in ignoring post-mortem report of veterinary doctor duly supported by affidavit of the concerned doctor and sarpanch of the village—Respondent No. 1 had solely depended upon the report of investigator which is without any affidavit—Respondent No. 1 has failed to prove that the dead animal was a different animal that the animal insured by it—Appeal allowed. (Para 11)
Facts of the Case:
Appellant/complainant was running business of Dairy Farming at village Raowali District Jalandhar and had taken a cattle insurance policy valid for the period of 30.12.2003 to 29.12.2004 from respondent No. 1 OP No. 1, United India Insurance Company Ltd. The complainant had got insured 30 cattle for a sum of Rs. 6,00,000 with OP No. 1 by paying a premium of Rs. 25,000. All the cattle were financed by respondent No. 2. Policy also included a buffalo bearing tag No. 9085 valued for Rs. 18,000 which died on 16.9.2003. OP No. 1 was duly informed regarding death of the buffalo and post mortem was also conducted by a veterinary doctor.
The complainant after getting post-mortem report lodged claim with OP No. 1 to the tune of Rs. 18,000 which was illegally repudiated by OP No. 1.
Alleging a deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1, the complainant filed a complaint in District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar claiming a sum of Rs. 18,000 with interest, compensation and cost of litigation.
OP No. 1 contested the complaint by filing written statement contending that complainant made fraudulent claim by dragging some dead cow to his cattle shed and as per its investigator’s report the cow appeared to have not died on 16.9.2003 but a couple of days back due to old age and some disease. The tag of some other cattle had been fitted in the carcass after death.
The learned District Forum after going through evidence produced by both the parties, held that the complainant failed to prove the identity of the cattle and the claim had been rightly repudiated by OP No. 1. The District Forum, accordingly, dismissed the complaint.
Hence this appeal.
Finding of the Commission:
Learned District Forum had not taken due cognizance of the cogent evidence on record and therefore erred in coming to conclusion that claim was false and it was rightly repudiated.
Result: Appeal allowed.
S. P. Kapoor, Member— This is an appeal received by transfer from Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar(for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 15.6.2006 in complaint case No.31 of 2004, Harbans Lal v. United India Insurance Company Limited and another.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he is running the business of Dairy Farming at Village Raowali, Distt. Jalandhar and had taken a cattle insurance policy bearing No.638864 valid for the period 30.12.2003 to 29.12.2003 from OP No.1 i.e. United India Insurance Company Limited. The complainant had got insured 30 cattle for a sum of Rs.6,00,000 with OP No.1 after completing all the required formalities at the time of taking the insurance policy. The complainant, it is averred, had paid the full premium of Rs.25,000. As per the complainant, all the cattles were purchased after obtaining loan from OP No.2 i.e. Indian Overseas Bank. It is averred that the policy also includes a Buffalo bearing Tag No.9085 valued for Rs.18,000, which died within the validity period of the insurance policy i.e. on 16.9.2003. It is contended that OP No.1 was duly informed regarding the death of the buffalo and post-mortem was also conducted by a veterinary doctor. The complainant, after getting the post-mortem report, lodged claim with OP No.1 to the tune of Rs.18,000, which claim was illegally repudiated without any justification. Alleging repudiation of claim to be a deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1, the complainant filed complaint claiming a direction to OP No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.18,000 to the complainant along with interest @18% from the date of death of the buffalo till payment and also claimed a sum of Rs.10,000 as compensation besides costs of litigation.
3. The version of OP No.1 in its written statement is that the claim was rightly repudiated on the ground that the complainant made fraudulent claim by dragging some dead cow to his cattle shed and the description of the said cow did not tally with the description, which was given at the time of insurance. As per the investigator’s report, the complainant gave a false statement regarding the death of the cow in the morning of 15.9.2003, however, the cow in fact appeared to have died a couple of days back due to old age and some disease the tag of some other cattle had been fitted in the carcass after death. As per the report of investigator, the internal organs of the cattle were lying outside and proper autopsy was not possible to ascertain the actual cause of death and there were clear signs of dragging near the carcass. As per OP No.1, the claim had been rightly repudiated on the basis of investigation report and there is no deficiency on the part of OP No.1 in repudiating the claim of the complainant.
4. The learned District Forum, in their analysis of the complaint observed that out of 30 cattles insured under policy, the employee of the complainant had only shown six tags bearing Nos.9077, 9079, 9089, 9092, 9094 and 9095 and according to the report of the investigator ear tag had been fitted on the ear of he carcass after death. It further observed that the tag had been mentioned as 9085 in Para No.3 of the complainant and according to checking report Ex. O7, there was no cattle with tag No.9085. The learned District Forum further that the tag number of the deceased animal was not tallying with the tag number mentioned in complaint as no tag No.9085 was found at the spot according to report Ex.O7. It held that the description of the cow did not tally with the details given in the policy and the major portion of the body of the cattle had been eaten by the dogs. The learned District Forum finally held that the complainant had failed to prove the identity of the cattle and the claim had been rightly repudiated by OP No.1. The learned District Forum dismissed the complaint being not maintain
