Tata Aig General Insurance Co Ltd vs Puran Chand Rawat

SH . Puran Ram Rawat, the complainant in this case purchased three buffaloes and one cow and got the same insured with the Tata AIG Insurance Company Limited - the OP on 26.03.2008 for all risks. Their tag numbers were given and the buffalo in question was insured for a sum of Rs.30,000/ - and its tag number was B05829. The agent of the Insurance Company fixed the tags immediately at the time of insurance in their ears. During the subsistence of the Insurance Policy, on 30.08.2008, the above said buffalo in question, fell ill and passed away. The intimation was given to the Veterinary Medical Officer Haldina. The postmortem of the said buffalo was got done in the presence of the surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim. The complainant filed a complaint for recovery of Rs.30,000/ - for insurance claim, Rs.5,000/ - as compensation and Rs. 5,000/ - towards expenses and interest from 20.11.2008.

THE Opposite Party filed reply before the District Forum. They denied all these allegations. It was averred that the complainant has not sent any information about the death of the buffalo to the Company as per the terms and conditions of the Policy, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any amount from the Insurance Company.

THE District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay Rs.30,000/ - towards the Insurance Policy, Rs.3,000/ - towards compensation, within a period of 30 days otherwise it will carry interest @ 15%. The State Commission by a cryptic order, presided over by Mr. Justice Ashok Parihar, as usual, dismissed the appeal.

LEARNED counsel for the petitioner/OP vehemently argued that they did not execute any policy in this regard. He argued that all these documents are fictitious. He further argued that the Lower Court''s file be requisitioned and enquiry be held in this regard. He also invited my attention towards the order passed by this Commission on 25.04.2011 which is reproduced as follows: - "Mr. K. L. Nandwani seeks to press in support of his submission that the complainant has not taken any insurance of any buffalo from the petitioner -insurance company at any point of time.

Therefore, the District Consumer Forum had wrongly recorded that the buffalo of the complainant was insured and the insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured for that purpose".

ON the other hand, counsel for the complainant has produced various documents which were also produced before the District Forum. The first printed document is under the head "TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. RAJASTHAN LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD, SCHEDULE OF CATTLE PROPOSED FOR INSURANCE". It reveals that a number of cattle were insured by the OP, which also bears the signatures of Veterinary Officer, dealing officer, as well as Dr. Sita Ram Verma. The buffalo in question also finds mention therein at Sr. No. 2. The IDV has been shown as Rs.30,000/ - for which charges in the sum of Rs.300/ - were obtained. This document runs into two pages and it mentions about various cattle of different villagers. There is another document signed by the complainant wherein request was made to the Veterinary Officer to get the Postmortem of his dead buffalo conducted. Then there is another one more important document i.e. the Postmortem report, issued by the Government of Rajasthan, Animal Husbandry Department, Veterinary Necropsy Protocol (Post -Mortem Report) Dated 30.08.2008 which clearly, specifically and unequivocally mentions that the postmortem was conducted at the request of Surveyor Tata AIG Mr. Prashant in regard to the buffalo belonging to the complainant. Thereafter, there is report of Veterinary doctor in Hindi language. This letter was written to Sh. Akhilesh Acharya, Assistant Manager, Urban, TATA AIG Insurance Co. Ltd., C - Scheme , Jaipur, wherein it was mentioned that as per telephonic conversation, he is required to send the copy of the policy.

I have perused the reply filed by the Opposite Party. They did not deny that it issued the above said policy. The reply is vague, evasive and namby -pamby pleas made therein lead the Commission nowhere. However, the documents produced before the Fora below clearly go to reveal that the Insurance was made on behalf of the OP. The petitioner is harping on the question that the enquiry should be made. It is surprising to note that a big and prestigious company like Tata AIG could not make enquiry uptil now within the span of seven years. It did not state that the printed forms do not belong to their Company or they have no connection with Dr. Sita Ram Verma, Veterinary Officer, Signatures, which are not legible or the authorized Tagging Officer, whose signatures appear on the record. It is the Opposite Party and nobody else, who is to carry the ball to prove that Mr. Prashant, the alleged surveyor has no connection with them. No affidavit saw the light of the day that the above said Mr. Prashant has got no connection with the Insurance Company or he was not appointed by them. They also did not state that they did not receive the letter addressed to Mr. Akhilesh Acharya, Assistant Manager, whose mobile/telephone number is also mentioned. The Opposite Party did not make any enquiry from all the above named persons. After 7 years, counsel wants that the Commission should make enquiry for which there is no basis. It appears that the complainant was taken for a ride. The petitioner had no courtesy to send the original terms and conditions of the policy. It is but clear that somebody either the OP itself or some other persons belonging to it has tried to pull the wool in the eyes of Law. It is a sad story that the gullible persons are led the garden path like this, either by the OP or other persons who act in cahoots with it. Such like incident should have alerted the OP and criminal action should have followed.

UNDER these circumstances, I hereby dismiss the Revision Petition with costs in the sum of Rs.20,000/ -, out of which Rs.10,000/ - be paid to the Complainant and Rs.10,000/ - be deposited with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission, through demand drafts, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.