Back
2015 Supreme(UK) 287
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
Hon'ble Mr. Presiding Member D.K. Tyagi, H.J.S. and
Hon’ble Member Mrs. Veena Sharma
First Appeal No. A/11/169
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. – Appellant(s)
Versus
SH. O.N. JAISWAL – Respondent(s)
Decided on : 01.07.2015
Headnote:Consumer Complaint – Claim for Compensation – In the present case, the Veterinary Doctor had proved on medical report that he knew the cow was insured – At the time of death, the cow was bearing ear tag – Complainant-respondent had taken the insurance for his cow from the opposite party-appellant under the ULDB scheme – Respondent was not aware that he had to give the intimation to the insurance company-appellant – Thus, there was a delay of 4 to 5 days to intimate the insurance company due to unawareness – Respondent had no contact number of the appellant and there were two holidays in between – So, the respondent could not contact the insurance company on time – Held District Forum had properly considered the facts and rightly allowed the consumer complaint – No illegality, irregularity and jurisdictional error in the impugned order.
(Paras 9, 10, 11, 12)
miHkksDrk f’kdk;r & izfrdj nkok & f’kdk;rdÙkkZ&izfroknh us vUrxZr ULDB ;kstuk] viuh xk; dk vihykFkhZ }kjk chek djk;k Fkk & izLrqr okn esa i’kq fpfdRld }kjk fpfdRlk fjiksVZ esa fl) fd;k x;k Fkk fd xk; chfer Fkh & e`R;q ds le; xk; ds dku ij VSx yxk Fkk & izfroknh dks tkx#drk ugha Fkh fd mls chek dEiuh@vihykFkhZ dks lwfpr djuk Fkk] bl izdkj lwpuk nsus esa vtkx#drk ds dkj.k 4 ls 5 fnu dk foyEc gqvk Fkk & izfroknh ds ikl chek dEiuh dk dksbZ Qksu ua- Hkh ugha Fkk o chp esa nks fnu dk vodk’k Hkh iM+k Fkk & blfy, izfroknh chek dEiuh ls le; ij lEidZ ugha dj ik;k & /kkfjr ftyk Qksje }kjk rF;ksa ij ;Fkksfpr fopkj fd;k x;k Fkk & ikfjr vkns’k esa dksbZ voS/kkfudrk] vfu;ferrk ;k fof/kd =qfV ughaA
¼izLrj 9] 10] 11] 12½
(Per: Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member):
In this appeal The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.-appellant through its Senior Divisional Manager, Udhamsingh Nagar has challenged the judgment and order dated 19.11.2010 passed by the District Forum, Udhamsingh Nagar in consumer complaint No. 64 of 2008, whereby the District Forum has directed the opposite party-appellant to settle the claim within one month and to pay to the complainant claim amount together with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the consumer complaint till the date of actual payment and Rs. 500/- for mental agony and Rs. 500/- towards cost of litigation.
2. Brief facts in nutshell are that the complainant-Sh. D. N. Jaiswal had purchased a cow and the same was comprehensively insured under Pashudhan Bima Scheme with The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.–opposite party for the period from 14.05.2007 to 13.05.2008. The said cow bearing tag No. 13364 policy No. 253803 year 2008/141. The said cow died on 08.09.2007 due to illness, therefore, the complainant has informed the insurance company and Veterinary Doctor, Sadar, State Veterinary Hospital, Rudrapur, Udhamsingh Nagar. The death certificate of the deceased cow was issued by Veterinary Doctor and Panchnama was prepared in the presence of complainant’s neighbours and Senior Vice-President, Nagar Palika Parishad, Rudrapur (U.S.N.). The complainant had submitted all the original documents with the opposite party relating to the insurance claim, but the insurance company repudiated the complainant’s claim on 08.08.2008, stating that there was no tag on the ear in photograph of deceased cow. The complainant is a law abiding person. The opposite party does not want to pay insured amount, therefore, the complainant is suffering from mental agony and financial loss. The complainant is a consumer of the opposite party, therefore, he is entitled to get claim amount. The cause of action arose on 08.09.2007 on death of complainant’s cow and also on 08.08.2008, i.e. date of repudiation of the complainant’s claim. The complainant apprised that on 08.09.2007 it was IInd Saturday and the next day was Sunday. Due to this, the complainant could not inform the opposite party timely, rather he informed the Veterinary Doctor, Udhamsingh Nagar in this regard and all the formalities were completed in the presence of Veterinary Doctor. Alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite party, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Udhamsingh Nagar.
3. The opposite party-The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. has pleaded in its written statement that the present consumer complaint is false, frivolous, misconceived in nature and has been filed with the sole motive of obtaining claim from the insurance company. The complainant has concealed and suppressed material facts with the malafide intention to mislead the District Forum. The complainant had not given any intimation to the insurance company within the stipulated time frame of 24 hours and the insurance company cannot be held for not complying with the mandatory requirement in clear contravention to the policy conditions. The complainant had deposited the tag to the insurance company long after the death of the cow that too without the part of the ear as per the mandatory requirement of the insurance policy and, hence, the complainant is not entitled for the claim as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant had sent the intimation regarding the death of the said cow long after its death for which the insurance company cannot be held liable. The “No Claim” was done on the valid grounds when the photographs presented to the insurance company did not prove the death of the animal insured. The complainant had never complied with the formalities. The timely intimation is must so as to enable the insurance company to investigate regarding the reasons for the death of the animal and to identify the animal. The complainant had informed the ins
