IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 31th day of October, 2011
Filed on 01.03.2011
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.66/2011
between
Complainant :- | Opposite parties:- |
Sri. Venkiteswaran Nair, Koyikkal, Maruthorvattom .P.O, Cherthala | 1. Branch Manager United India Insurance Company, Sarada Shopping Complex, Mullakkal, Alappuzha. (Adv. Hemalatha, Alappuzha) 2. Dr. Vimalzevier Vetenary Disipansary, Thannermukkom, Alappuzha. |
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
1. The complainant case in a nutshell is as follows: - The complainant has been rearing cattle for his livelihood. When the government implemented insurance to all cattle under ’GOSURAKSHA’ Scheme, the complainant insured his cow under the said scheme for an amount of Rs.8000 /-(Rupees Eight thousand only ) with the 1st opposite party. The complainant had insured his animal with the 1st opposite party at the instance and instruction of the 2nd opposite party. On 28th August 2010, the complainant’s cow succumbed to some ailment, and the 2nd opposite partywas intimated as to the same. The complainant inline with the instruction of the 2nd opposite party photographed the dead animal and pulled out the insurance tag from the animal’s ear. The 2nd opposite party doled out assurances to the effect that the 2nd opposite party has taken expedite steps to get the policy amount disbursed. As such the complainant approached the opposite parties for the policy amount. Notwithstanding all this, the opposite parties were not prepared to payout the policy amount to the complainant hitherto. The service of the opposite party is deficient. Got aggrieved on this, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
2. On notices being served, the opposite parties turned up and filed separate versions. The 1 st opposite party contends that the complainant has not duly complied with the conditions of the policy. The complainant has not submitted the claim form nor has produced the post mortem certificate or the ’tag’ of the animal. According to the opposite party, in this backdrop, the opposite party has no opportunity to repudiate the complainant’s claim. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party. The complaint is only to be dismissed, the 1st opposite party contends. The 2nd opposite party contends that he was not informed as to the death of the animal. According to the 2nd opposite party, he hasn’t instructed the complainant to take the photograph of the cow nor to take out it ear tag. The complainant has not complied with the policy conditions. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost to the 2nd opposite party, the 2nd opposite party fervently argues.
3. The complainant evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant as PwI, and the documents Exbt Al to A3 were marked. On the side of the opposite party, the Divisional Manager of the 1st opposite party filed proof affidavit and Exbt B1 was marked.
4. Keeping in mind the contentions of the parties, the issues that arise before
us for consideration is:-
(1) Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service?
(2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the policy amount?
5. Holding the contentions of the parties in view, we carefully went through the pleadings, submissions and other materials brought into recode by the parties. It appears that the opposite parties haven’t denied or even disputed the death of the cow or the existence of the material policy. To put it in other words, the complainant, concededly is a cattle nurturer, and has availed the material policy for his deceased cow from the 1st opposite party. And admittedly, at the time of the animal’s death, the policy was in force. Now, the sole question arises to be looked into is whether the complainant is entitled to the said policy amount. On a deep look into the matter, it seems that the contention of the opposite party mainly revolves round to the opposite party has not duly submitted the claim form nor has produced the ’ear tag’ and the postmortem certificate. It is significant to notice that the opposite parties have not challenged the death of the cow or the manner of its death. Likewise, the opposite parties haven’t at any point of time disputed the existence of policy or the continuation of the same to the material time. The complainant asserts that the death of the cow was duly intimated to the 2nd opposite party, and acted along the lines of his advice. Further, it seems that the opposite party has not let in any useful evidence that would refute the complainant case. We need hardly say that the complainant case stands well established, and the complainant is entitled to relief.
6. For the forgoing facts and findings, the 15t opposite party is directed to pay out to the complainant the policy amount of Rs.8000/-(Rupees Eight thousand only ) with 9% interest from the date of this order. The opposite party is further directed to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.750/-(Rupees Seven hundred and fifty only ) as cost. The opposite party shall comply with the order within 30 days of receipt of this order.
Complaint stands disposed accordingly
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of October 2011.
Sd/- Sri.Jimmy Korah
Sd/- Sri.K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Smt. N.Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Pw1 -Complainant of Sri. Venkiteswaran Nair
Ext. A1 - Cattle of Insurance Policy dated 11/08/2010 to 10/08/2011
Ext. A2 - Ear ring by complainant
Ext.A3 - Photograph by complainant
Evidence of the Opposite party:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- sh/-
Compared by:-
