Wednesday  the 30^th  day of November, 2011

in

between

 

                                                                                                                                                                       

                                                                      O R D E R

The complainant case in succinctly is as follows:- The complainant on 30^th December 2008, purchased a mulched cow for an amount of Rs. 22500/-(Rupees Twenty two thousand five hundred only )  Subsequent to thereof, the said cow was examined by concerned doctors, and the same was insured with the opposite party for an amount of Rs.20000/-(Rupees Twenty thousand only ).With the result the opposite party issued an ear tag to have been fastened in animal’s ear. When mattes stood thus, on 10^th October 2010, the cow was succumbed to death following an accidental strangulation caused by piece of rope used to tie the animal up. The complainant approached the opposite party for the insurance amount. The opposite party repudiated the claim for the flimsy reason that the complainant failed to produce the ear tag before the opposite party. During the course of the animal’s tribulations preceding its death, the ear tag was lost somewhere. The complainant had duly produced the certificate issued by the authorized doctor confirming that the particular cow so died was the one insured with the opposite party. Strangely yet, the opposite party remain obdurate and refused the insurance benefit to the complainant. There is deficiency on the part of the service of the opposite party. Feeling aggrieved the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and relief.

2. On notice being served the opposite party turned up and filed version. The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant has not produced the ear tag before the opposite party which is mandatory to obtain the insurance benefit. The apart the material animal met with its tragic end on being throttled accidently by the fastening rope. According to the opposite party, similar sort of death is not covered by the instant insurance policy. As such the complainant is disentitled to the policy amount. In this context, the opposite party has not committed deficiency of service. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party, the opposite party forcefully contends.

3. On the side of the complainant, the complainant himself was examined and the documents were marked. The opposite party’s evidence consists of the testimony of its manager.

(a)  Whether the complainant is liable to produce ear tag in order to avail the insurance

(b)  Whether the death by strangulation is not covered by the instant policy?

 5. The existence of the policy or the death of the cow is neither denied nor disputed by the opposite party. In other words, the opposite party has admitted the policy of the material animal as well as it accidental death. On a scrutiny of the opposite party’s contention, it appears that the opposite party has repudiated the complainant’s claim since the complainant has not produced the ear tag issued by the opposite party. What is more, the sort of death the cow succumbed to is not covered by the policy in issue. Bearing the said contentions of the opposite party lively in mind,  we effected a searching survey of the entire materials available on record before us. It is worthwhile to note that opposite party has not disputed the policy. Its only contention as to this is that the complainant failed to produce the ear tag which ought to have been produced before the  opposite party for the enjoyment of the policy benefit. Interestingly, the opposite party has not raised any doubt as to the identity of the dead animal. As we have already observed, the policy is rather admitted. Besides, the complainant has offered a reasonable explanation as to the non­production of the ear tag of the animal. In this back drop, the opposite party’s contention with regard to the ear tag does not seemingly hold water. Coming down to the next contention advanced by the opposite party to the effect that the death of the animal similar to that by strangulation does not come under the ambit of the provisions of the instant policy. Significantly, save making such a contention the opposite party has not taken any meaningful move to substantiate the same. Mere making contentions will not work. The party who makes particular contention is expected to establish the same by means of any method available in law. Therefore, in the context of the complainant’s most probable case, and in the absence of sufficient materials on the part of the opposite party to substantiate or the least bit to support its case, we regret, we have no course open but to accept the complainant’s case. Needless to say, the complainant is entitled to relief.

complainant is entitled to the policy amount of Rs.20000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only ) to be obtained from the opposite party. As such, the opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant the aforesaid amount of Rs.20000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only ) with 9% interest from the date of the instant complaint till its recovery. The opposite party shall comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days of receipt of the same.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30^th day  of  November   2011.

                                                                                                Sd/-Sri.Jimmy Korah

Sd/-Sri.K. Anirudhan:

                                                                                                Sd/-Smt. N.Shajitha Beevi