Complaint filed on 09.05.2012  

                                                                                                                                Compliant disposed on 13.03.2015 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM   ::AT:: KARIMNAGAR, TELANGANA STATE

PRESENT: HON'BLE SRI B.SURESH, B.A., LL.M., Ist ADDL. DIST. &

SESSIONS JUDGE AND PRESIDENT (FAC)
AND

SRI G.SREENIVAS RAO, M.Sc.,B.Ed.,LL.B., PGADR (NALSAR), MEMBER

 FRIDAY THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH,

TWO THOUSAND FIFTEEN

                                                                                 CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.90 OF 2012

Between:-

Annam Chandrashekhar Reddy, S/o.Balreddy, Age: 26 years, Occ: Sri Sai Diary, R/o.Nustulapur, V/o.Thimmapoor Mandal of Karimnagar District                                                                                                              ……      Complainant                                                                                     

                                                   AND

1. The Manager, Vijaya Bank, Main Road, Nustulapur Branch.

2. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co.,Ltd., Divisional Office, H.No.2-6-299, A.E.Estates, 1^st Floor, Mukarampura, Karimnagar.                                                                                                             ……   Opposite parties

This complaint is coming up before us for hearing on 07.11.2014, in the presence of Sri Ramesh Chander Advocate for complainant, and Sri N.Parameshwar Advocate for the opposite party no.1 and Sri S.V.Ramchandar Rao Advocate for the opposite party no.2 on perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration this day, the Forum passed the following.

:: O R D E R ::

This complaint is filed Under Section 12 of CP Act to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards the cost of the dead cow besides granting an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties no.1 and 2 and also another amount of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and also costs of the case.  

Brief facts of the Case

1.       a)       The complainant is a resident of Nustulapur running Sri Sai Dairy for his livelihood. He had milk-giving cattle consisting of 40 cows, and few she buffaloes. The opposite party no.1 is the branch of Vijaya Bank located at Nustulapur has informed about their tie up with the opposite party no.2 for getting the cattle insured with the United India Insurance Co., Ltd through their Bank so that in case of untoward happening to any of the cattle, the risk will be covered by the opposite party no.1 and 2. Believing the same, the complainant got insured his cows in all numbering 12 cows with the opposite party no.2 through opposite party no.1 under “Cattle Insurance Policy” and the opposite party no.2 had issued policy certificate bearing policy No.052300/47/11/01/00000671 valid for a period of one year from 24.12.2011 to 23.12.2012. He had paid premium amount of Rs.24,000/- and the policy covers the risk to the cattle so insured and there is a condition that in case of any mishap to any of the insured cattle, the opposite parties will indemnify the owner of the cattle to the extent to Rs.50,000/- each. The only condition to be followed in case of mishappening is that in the event of death of animal covered, claim shall not be entertained unless the ear tag is surrendered to the company. In the event of loss of ear tags, it is the responsibility of the insured to give immediate notice to the company and get another tag. The company is not liable to pay the claim in the event of death of insured animal due to disease occurring within 15 days from the commencement of risk.

b)       The complainant further submits that one of the insured animal bearing tag No.93087 had died on 14.01.2012 at 2 a.m due to ascites and at the time of its death the dead cow was freshly calved and of 6 years age and giving 20 liters of milk per day and the value of the dead cow prior to death was Rs.50,000/-. The cow died after 15 days of the commencement of risk and as per the conditions of the policy opposite parties no.1 and 2 are liable to release the claim of the complainant.

c)       The complainant preferred a claim with the opposite parties no.2 requesting to release the claim amount and also enclosing all the necessary documents but the opposite party no.2 addressing a letter to opposite party no.1 mentioning that “we are not in a position to help our clients on account of our claims ratio which gave occasion to frame special conditions which over rides the general terms and conditions”. Thus the opposite party no.2 had clearly violated his own conditions of the policy in not releasing the claim amount even after accepting huge amount towards premium for the insured cattle. This act of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 amounted to clear deficiency in service and also caused severe mental agony to the complainant and financial loss, which has to be compensated by the opposite parties.   

2.       a)       The opposite party no.1 submits that the complaint against him is not maintainable under the law as the complainant insured his cattle with opposite party no.2. That he is only a facilitator between the customer and opposite party no.2. The complainant insured his cattle with opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.1 is not at all deficient in rendering service to the complainant. As per the policy conditions in case of any mishap to any of the insured cattle, the insurance company will indemnify the owner of the cattle to the extent of Rs.50,000/-. It is only the opposite party no.2 who has to settle the claim of the complainant. Therefore, the complaint lodged against opposite party no.1 is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed in limini.

b)       The opposite party no.2 submits that the complainant has taken “Cattle Insurance Policy” from his company for 12 cows covering the policy period from 24.12.2011 to 23.12.2012 and if there is any mishap his company will indemnify the owner of the cattle to the extent of Rs.50,000/-.

It is submitted that as per the special condition of the policy his company is not liable to pay compensation if there is any loss occurred within waiting period of 30 days. In this case the Cow (animal) bearing tag No.93087 said to have died on 14.01.2012 at 2 a.m which is within 30 days of waiting period from the date of commencement of the policy, therefore our company has repudiated the claim of the complainant. That as per the special condition of the policy the death of Cow is not covered. It is submitted that the special condition is mentioned in the policy and the complainant is also well aware about this fact, knowingly the complainant has filed this complaint to make wrongful gain from the company. As such there is no deficiency of service on the part of our company, after due verification of the claim of the complainant our company has repudiated the claim and the complainant is not entitled for the claim and our company is not liable therefore the complaint may be dismissed with costs.  

3.       Both the counsels led evidence and marked their respective exhibits as Ex.A1 to A7 for complainant & Ex.B1 for the opposite party no.2 and the opposite party no.1/Bank filed only affidavit.

          Now the point for consideration is whether the opposite parties are responsible for the deficiency in service? If so, To what extent the liability?.

POINT

          The Complainant got insured his 12 cows with opposite party no.2 through opposite party no.1 under cattle insurance policy. The policy period is from 24.12.2011 to 23.12.2012 for which he had paid the premium of Rs.24,000/- to the opposite party no.2. The risk carries Rs.50,000/- to each animal. One of the insured animal having ear tag with number 93087, had died on 14.01.2012 at 2 a.m. The complainant preferred a claim of Rs.50,000/- (sum assured) against the death cow. The opposite party no.1 admitted that he is a facilitator between the customer and opposite party no.2. As per condition the insurance company will indemnify the owner of the cattle to the extent of Rs.50,000/- so it is only the opposite party no.2 must settle the claim but not the opposite party no.1.

          There is no dispute in the sum assured and policy period of the cattle insurance. The opposite party no.2 repudiated the claim (Ex.A5) and the same was addressed to opposite party no.1. Again the Bank Manager requested to consider the claim of the owner of the cattle as a special case vide his letter Dt: 28.03.2012 (Ex.A6). Once again the claim was repudiated saying that as per the special condition of the policy the opposite party no.2/company is not liable to pay compensation if there is any loss occurred within waiting period of 30 days. (Ex.B1 or Ex.A1)

          On careful perusal of cattle insurance policy (Ex.B1) There is a special condition as – “NO TAG AND PHOTO NO CLAIM, WAITING PERIOD 30 DAYS (CLAIM)”. Similarly, it is also clearly mentioned in the same policy above the special condition as “The Company is not liable to pay the claim in the event of death of insured animal due to disease occurring within 15 days from the commencement of risk”.

          In view of the above, one can come to a conclusion that a poor cattle shed person goes for the cattle insurance to save his animals from the risk involved in the management of livestock. The Ex.A3, A4 & A7 show that the dead cow was certified by the Government Veterinary Surgeon and the mishap happened during subsistence of the policy period and the special condition of waiting period 30 days (claim) is applicable in case no tag and no photo was found. In the instant case, the dead animal carries the ear tag no.93087 and photo was also enclosed under Ex.A7 (3 photos) and it was certified by the concerned Veterinary Surgeon under Ex.A3 & A4. Having all the documents in order, repudiation by the opposite party no.2 on his contention only leads to a suspicious stand of the opposite party no.2 to escape the liability under the policy. In this regard the opposite party no.2 is liable to the extent of sum assured plus penalty. Similarly, the opposite party no.1, against his insistence the complainant got the 12 cows insured with opposite party no.2, is also liable for the compensation for unfair trade practice. The complainant proved his case and the point is answered in his favour.         

          In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite party no.2 is directed to pay a sum assured of Rs.50,000/- in addition to Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony caused and further directed the opposite parties (1 & 2) jointly to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as punitive damages to the complainant.

          Time for compliance is 30 days.         

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer and after correction, the orders pronounced by us in the open court this the 13^th day of March, 2015.

                    Sd/-                                                                                    Sd/-

                   MEMBER                                                                    PRESIDENT (FAC)

NO ORAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ADDUCED ON EITHER SIDE

FOR COMPLAINANT:                       

1. Ex.A1 is the photo copy of Cattle Insurance Policy Schedule issued by the opposite party no.2 Dt: 23.12.2011. (2 Sheets)
2. Ex.A2 is the photo copy of Claim Form issued to opposite party no.2 along with Livestock Claim/Veterinary Certificate Dt: 03.02.2012.
3. Ex.A3 is the photo copy of Veterinary Certificate issued by the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Parlapally Dt: 03.02.2012.
4. Ex.A4 is the photo copy of Postmortem Certificate issued by the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Parlapally Dt: 03.02.2012.
5. Ex.A5 is the photo copy of Repudiation letter from opposite party no.2, United India Insurance Company Ltd addressed to Vijaya Bank Dt: 22.02.2012 (opposite party no.1).
6. Ex.A6 is the photo copy of Letter from United India Insurance Company addressed to the Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank Dt: 28.03.2012. Regarding client’s cattle claim as a special case & its repudiation by opposite party no.2/Corporate office.
7. Ex.A7 contains the Photographs (3) of Cow. (showing dead animal, ear tag and internal viscera of animal)

FOR OPPOSITE PARTY:

1. Ex.B1 is the copy of Ex.A1.  

            Sd/-                                                                                  Sd/-

                MEMBER                                                                    PRESIDENT(FAC)