D.O.F: 19/12/2017
D.O.O: 20/12/2018
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.244/17
Dated this, the 20th day of December 2018
PRESENT:
SRI.ROY PAUL :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
Reena Muralidharan, R/at “ Devadatham”,
Thekkumbad,South Trikaripur
Elambachi. P.O,Kasaragod -671311. : Complainant
The BranchManager, : Opposite Party
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd,
Opposite to Perumba Juma Masjid,perumba, Knadoth PO.
(Adv : A.K.V. Balakrishnan)
ORDER
SRI.ROY PAUL :PRESIDENT
This complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act is for an order directing the opposite party to pay sum of Rs. 30,000/- as insurance claim with interest and cost to the complainant.
The case of the complainant in brief:-
The complainant had insured her cow with the opposite party for a sum of Rs.30000/-. While so the cow has expired and complainant submitted claim form before the opposite party with all relevant documents. But so far the opposite party not approved the claim. So there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and complainant had suffered much hardship, mental agony, loss of time and money. Hence the complaint
The opposite party entered appearance before the Fora and submitting their written version contenting that since the complainant failed to produce the ear tag before the opposite party as per the terms of the policy, the claim could not be allowed. The complainant has failed to submit the cause of death of the cow also. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and complaint may be dismissed with cost
On the basis of the rival contentions in the pleadings the following issues were framed for consideration.
- Whether there is any deficiency service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complaint is entitled for any reliefs?
- Reliefs and cost?
The evidence consists of the oral testimony of the Pw1 and Ext A1 document marked on her side. The opposite party adduced evidence through Dw1 and Ext B1 document also were marked.
ISSUE NO: 1
The complainant adduced evidence through her husband as witness and he submitted his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the contentions in the version. He was cross examined as Pw1 by the opposite party and he relied on Ext A1 document also to substantiate his case. According to him the opposite party never asked her to produce the ear tag of the cow as alleged the version. The complainant has produced the certificate from the doctor who treated the cow. The opposite party is bound to pay the insurance claim to the complainant. There is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The complaint may be allowed.
According to Dw1 there is a condition in the policy that “not tag-no claim”. The complaint has failed to produce tag and post-mortem report before the opposite party. So the opposite party has no liability to pay the claim amount to the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Heard both sides.
On perusal of the pleadings, documents and evaluation of the evidence tendered before the Fora we hold that admittedly the cow was duly insured with the opposite party as per Ext A1 policy. The claim has submitted on 02/05/2017. But till the filing of the complaint dated 08/12/2017 there was no communication from the side of the opposite party to the complainant. The opposite party has neither allowed the claim nor repudiated the same till 08/12/2017. The opposite party has admitted that the insured cow has expired. The Pw1 categorically depposed before Fora that the complaint has submitted 2 medical certificate from Vetenary doctor to that effect also before the opposite party. According to Pw1 since the opposite party unclaimed the tag of the cow they could not collect it from the dead body of the cow. Denial of claim on hyper technical ground amounts to deficiency of service. So we hold that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the issue No: 1 found against the opposite party and answered accordingly.
ISSUE NO: 2&3
As discussed above the complainant is entitled for the insurance claim from the opposite party. It is in evident that due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party the complainant has suffered much hardship, mental agony, loss of time and money. From the foregoing discussion and findings we hold that the opposite party is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as insurance claim along with Rs.3000/- towards compensation and cost together to the complainant. Thus the issue No. 2 and 3 also accordingly answered.
In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as insurance claim along with Rs.3000/-(Rupees Three thousand only) as compensation and cost together to the complainant within 30 days receipt of the order. Failing which the aforesaid sum of Rs. 30,000/- will carry interest @ 10 % per annum from the date of order till realisation. The complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits:
A1- Copy of the Policy Dated: 13-03-2017.
Witness Examined :
PW1- P.C. Muralidharan.
DW1- P.V. Unnikrishnan.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Ps/
Senior Superintendent
