DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE

PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB           : PRESIDENT

Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) :  MEMBER

Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER

Thursday the 29^th   day of  February 2024

CC.42/2022

Complainant

K.N. Karunakaran,

Mavaleri Veedu,

Chenakkalangadi (PO),

Malappuram-673636.

Opposite Party

Divisional Manager,

New India Assuranace Company Ltd,

Tirur Divisional Office,

Malappuram- 676101.

ORDER

By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN  – PRESIDENT

            This complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was originally filed as CC 390/2018 before the District Consumer Redressal Commission, Malapuram on 17.10.2018. It was subsequently transferred to this Commission as per letter NO. B-1184/2021 dated 20/01/2022 of the Hon’ble Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. On receipt of the records, the complaint was numbered as CC 42/2022 before this Commission.

2.  The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

The complainant had purchased 2 cows availing loan under Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY). The cows were insured with the opposite party after examination by the veterinary doctor. The cow with tag No. 7498 was insured for Rs. 35,000/- and the other cow with tag NO. 8548 was insured for Rs. 25,000/-. The period of the insurance was from 24/11/2015 to 23/11/2018.

3.             While so, the cow with tag No. 7498 became ill and was under treatment. While the cow was under treatment on 13/06/2018 it had come to the notice of the complainant that the identification tag of the animal was missing. On the same day, the complainant met the veterinary doctor at Thenhipalam and submitted an application, pursuant to which, a new tag was entrusted to him stating that the doctor would come later and fix the tag on the animal. But before the visit of the doctor for fixing the tag, the cow died at about 9.45 pm on 13/06/2018. Post-mortem was conducted on the next day by the same veterinary doctor.
4.        When the death of the cow was informed to the Kottakkal office of the opposite party, they demanded to produce the post-mortem report and certificate from the local panchayath. Accordingly, the complainant produced the said documents. But the claim was repudiated stating the reason that there was no tag fixed on the animal at the time of death. The repudiation of the claim was on illegal ground. In fact, the loss of the tag was duly intimated to the veterinary doctor before the death of the animal and a new tag was entrusted to him.  Had the doctor come and fixed the tag on the cow instead of entrusting the same to him, this situation could have been avoided. In fact, the cow was having the tag and hence the repudiation of the claim on the above ground is not justified.  The new tag allotted is in the possession of the complainant. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite party to honour the claim of Rs. 35,000/- on account of the death of the cow and to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for the mental agony and hardship suffered and also the cost of the proceedings.
5.         The opposite party has resisted the complaint by filing written version wherein they have denied all the allegations and claims made against them in the complaint. According to the opposite party, the records submitted by the complainant did not show that the said cattle was insured with them. The only way to identify the cattle, which is insured, is the tag fitted on the cattle. It is a settled position that no tag - no insurance. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the claim cannot be considered if there is no tag. The complainant himself has admitted that no tag was fitted in the body of the cattle. That is a sufficient and genuine ground to reject the claim. There are no latches or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. With the above contentions, the opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint.
6.   The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;

             1) Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, as alleged?

                    2) Reliefs and costs.

7.         The complainant has filed affidavit. Exts A1 to A9 and MO1 were marked. The complainant was not cross examined by the opposite party. Despite   receipt of the notice and intimation issued from this Commission, the opposite party chose to remain absent and did not participate in the proceedings or let in any evidence. 
8.          Heard the complainant.
9.    Point No 1:    The complainant has approached this Commission with a grievance that the claim put in by him in connection with the death of his cow was repudiated by the opposite party without valid reason.
10.            The complainant has filed proof affidavit in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the copy of the agreement, Ext A2 is the application dated 13/06/2018 submitted before the veterinary surgeon, Thenhipalam for issuing new tag, Ext A3 is the letter dated 23/06/2018 issued by the President of Ksheerolpadana Sahakarana Sangam, Chenakkalangadi to the opposite party, Ext A4 is the letter dated 22/06/2018 issued by the president of Thenhipalam Grama Panchayath, Ext A5 is the certificate issued by the Veterinary Surgeon, Thenhipalam, Ext A6 is the post-mortem report dated 14/06/2018, Ext A7 is the letter dated 22/06/2018 issued by the Dairy Extension Officer, Parappanangadi to the opposite party, Ext A8 is the copy of the cattle insurance policy and Ext A9 is the copy of the letter dated 31/07/2018 of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. MO1 is the new identification tag No. 2078.
11.           It is not disputed that the complainant had availed Ext A8 cattle insurance policy of the opposite party. Two milch cows with identification tag NO. 7498 and 8548 were insured. The sum insured was Rs. 35,000/- and Rs. 27,500/- for the cow with tag No. 7498 and 8548 respectively. The period of the policy was from 24/11/2015 to 23/11/2018. The above aspects are not in dispute.
12.             It is averred in the proof affidavit that his cow with tag No. 7498 which was inured for Rs. 35,000/- fell ill and was under treatment and on 13/06/2018 he noticed that the identification tag number of the cow was missing. Accordingly, he informed the veterinary surgeon, Thanhipalam and applied for a new tag on 13/06/2018 itself.  On the same day,  a new tag (MO1) was issued and it was  entrusted to the complainant by the veterinary surgeon stating  that she would come and fit the tag on the animal later. But in the meanwhile, the cow died at about 9.45 pm on the same day before fixing of the tag. The claim preferred by the complainant was not considered by the opposite party in the absence of the ear tag.
13.               There is no reason to disbelieve the case of the complainant as stated in the complaint and reiterated and reaffirmed in the affidavit. The opposite party has chosen to remain absent and did not cross examine the complainant and his evidence stands unchallenged. The opposite party has not produced any evidence to disprove the averments in the complaint or to rebut the veracity of the documents produced and marked on the side of the complainant. There is no contra evidence to disprove the claim of the complainant.
14.             It is true that there is a condition in Ext A8 to the effect that tag should be surrendered at the time of the claim, otherwise it would be treated as no claim. It is also stated that in the event of death of cattle the claim shall not be entertained unless the ear tag is surrendered to the company. In this case, as and when the loss of the ear tag came to the notice of the complainant, he applied for a new one and obtained the same.  But before fixing the new tag allotted, the cow died. The complainant is in possession of the new tag allotted and it is produced before this Commission and marked as MO1. So this is not a case where there is no tag at all. It is averred  in the written version of the opposite party that the only way to identify the cattle as to whether it is insured or not is the tag fixed on the cattle.  It may be true that the ear tag is one of the criteria to identify the insured cattle. But ear tag alone cannot be the criteria. Here the complainant has produced Ext A3 to A5 and A7 letters/certificates which would show that it was the cow with tag No. 7498 that died. Ext A5 certificate was issued by the same veterinary surgeon who had issued MO1 and thereafter conducted the post-mortem examination and prepared Ext A6 report. The opposite party has not considered Ext A3 to A5 and A7 documents issued by the competent authorities regarding the death of cow with tag No. 7498 belonging to the complainant which was insured with the opposite party. The opposite party has not made any endeavour to verify whether it was the cow with tag No. 7498 that died, pursuant to which, Ext A6 post-mortem report was prepared by the veterinary surgeon, who had issued Ext A5 certificate. The genuineness and authenticity of Exts A3 to A5 and A7 are not challenged or disputed. The said documents would establish that it was the cow of the complainant with identification tag No. 7498 that died. The case of the complainant stands proved through affidavit and Exts A1 to A9 documents and MO1. When there is ample materials to hold that it was the insured cow with tag No. 7498 that died, the refusal of the opposite party to consider his claim stating the reason of absence of ear tag cannot be justified.
15.             From the above discussion, what emerges is that the claim was wrongly repudiated by the opposite party. The conduct and attitude of the opposite party in not considering the claim and denying the legitimate claim undoubtedly amounts to gross deficiency of service. It goes without saying that the act of the opposite party has resulted in mental agony and hardship to the complainant, who is a farmer. The complainant is entitled to be compensated adequately. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as claimed will be reasonable compensation in this case. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the proceedings. 
16. Point No. 2:- In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows;

                  a)  CC.42/2022 is allowed.

b) The opposite party is hereby directed to pay the complainant the claim amount of Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only)  with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the complaint ie 17/10/2018 till actual payment.

c) The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for the mental agony and hardship suffered.

d) The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

e)  The order shall be complied with within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order.

Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 29^th day of February, 2024.

                                  Sd/-                                                                   Sd/-                                                              Sd/-

                         PRESIDENT                                                       MEMBER                                                   MEMBER

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant :

Ext A1 -  Copy of the agreement,

Ext A2 - Application dated 13/06/2018 submitted before the veterinary surgeon, Thenhipalam for issuing new tag.

Ext A3 - Letter dated 23/06/2018 issued by the President of Ksheerolpadana Sahakarana Sangam, Chenakkalangadi to the opposite party.

Ext A4 - Letter dated 22/06/2018 issued by the president of Thenhipalam Grama Panchayath.

Ext A5 - Certificate issued by the Veterinary Surgeon, Thenhipalam.

Ext A6 - Post-mortem report dated 14/06/2018.

Ext A7 - Letter dated 22/06/2018 issued by the Dairy Extension Officer, Parappanangadi to the opposite party.

Ext A8 - Copy of the cattle insurance policy.

Ext A9 - Copy of the letter dated 31/07/2018 of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party

NIL.

Witnesses for the Complainant

NIL

Witnesses for the opposite party

NIL.

Material Object

MO1: Identification tag No. 2078.

                                                 Sd/-                                                                      Sd/-                                                  Sd/-

                                          PRESIDENT                                                        MEMBER                                       MEMBER

True Copy,      

                                                                                                                                                                   Sd/-

                                                                     Assistant Registrar.