O R D E R

                   3. During the tenure of insurance policy, the insured cow died due to strangulation.  Complainant informed the death to the approved veterinary doctor Suja Chacko of Kozhuvanal.  She examined the body of cow as per the direction of opposite party and filed cattle claim form and prepared treatment certificate, valuation certificate.  Ear tag, Photo, Price receipt and policy certificate were also submitted to opposite party.  But so far opposite party neither considered the claim nor released the insurance claim to the complainant.  This caused financial loss, mental agony and distress to complaint.  Hence this complaint for getting claim with interest, compensation and cost.

                        4. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version stating that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  Opposite party admitted that they have issued an insurance policy, which is valid from 11.12.08 to 10.12.09 covering one Bovine CB milching cow aged 5 year 6 months of the complainant.  The ear tag number of the insured cows is 65925 C2 and the insurance policy was issued to the cow with the said ear tag number.  The ear tag No.7916 as stated by complainant is not correct.  In case of missing of the original ear tag, it shall be informed to the insured and new ear tag can be fitted with the consent and knowledge of the insurer and necessary changes to be made in the policy certificate.  No such information was given to opposite party.

                        5. According to opposite party, the death of cow belong to the complainant was intimated to them for claiming benefits.  On processing the claim it was revealed that the ear tag produced does not belong to the insured cow.  The ear tag is the main identification mark of the insured cow. Under this circumstance, the claim was repudiated.  Hence they canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.                       

         6. From the above pleadings, following points are raised for consideration:

(1)   Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?

(2)   Whether the relief sought for in the complaint are allowable?

(3)   Reliefs & Costs?

          7. Evidence of the complaint consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant along with certain documents.  On the basis of the proof affidavit, documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A3.  From complainant’s side Dr. Suja. M. Chacko, Veterinary Surgeon was examined as PW1.

          8. Evidence of the opposite party consists of the proof affidavit filed by the opposite party along with certain documents.  He was examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 and B1(a).  After the closure of evidence, both parties were heard.

            9. Point Nos.1 to 3:-  In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant filed proof affidavit along with certain documents.  On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A3.  Ext.A1 is the Live Stock (cattle) Insurance policy issued by opposite party.  Ext.A2 is the copy of cattle claim form, treatment certificate and valuation certificate issued by Dr. Suja. M. Chacko, Veterinary Surgeon.  Ext.A3 is the carbon copy of letter issued by Dr. Suja. M. Chacko, Veterinary Surgeon to opposite party stating a new ear tag No.7916 has fixed to the insured cow of complainant.

            10. In order to prove the opposite party’s contention, opposite party filed proof affidavit along with certain documents.  He was examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 and B1(a).  Ext.B1 is the true copy of the insurance policy.  Ext.B1(a) is the copy of memorandum of understanding between the Animal Husbandry Department (Kerala Govt) and the opposite party.

          11. On the basis of the contention and averment of the parties, we have perused the entire material, on record.  Complainant’s grievance is the non-payment of insurance amount even though the insured cow died during the tenure of insurance policy.  Opposite party’s contention is that the ear tag No.7916 produced by the complainant does not belong to the insured cow.  The ear tag is the main identification mark of the insured cow.  In case of missing the original ear tag, it shall be informed to the insured and new ear tag can be fitted with the consent and knowledge of the insurer and necessary changes to be made in the policy certificate.  In this case, no such information was given to opposite party.  Therefore, they rightly repudiated the claim. 

          12. It is noted that there is no dispute regarding the validity of policy and death of cow.  The only dispute is that the ear tag produced by the complainant does not belong to the insured cow.  It is seen that complainant’s cow has been insured and ear tag No.65925 C2 has fixed.  Thereafter, the said ear tag has been lost.  A new ear tag, i.e. ear tag No.7916 has fixed by Veterinary Surgeon and the matter was informed to opposite party.  Opposite party’s contention is that either the complainant or the Veterinary Surgeon has to inform them.  If the ear tag is lost.  It is evident in DW1’s statement which is as follows:-  “Ear tag \jvSs¸«m DSa Insurance companyþsb B hnhcw Adnbn¡Ww.  DSabv¡pw doctorþ¡pw B hnhcw Insurance companyþsb Adnbn¡mw”. 

                   13. On a perusal of Ext.A3, it is seen that Vetarinary Surgeon has identified the complainant’s insured cow on the basis of their office file and a new ear tag No.7916 has fixed on the missing of the original tag No.65925 C2.  The matter has also been intimated to opposite party on 11.2.09.  It is evident from the deposition of PW2 which is as follows:- “Snbmsâ hI ]iphns\ ]cntim[n¨v insurance Bhiy¯nte¡v certificate \evInbncp¶Xpw \jvSs¸« ear tag fix sNbvXncp¶Xpw Rm³ Xs¶ Bbncp¶p.  Øew Veterinary Surgeon F¶ \nebn \jvSs¸« ear tagþ\p ]Icw 7916 F¶ \¼cnepÅ ear tag þRm³ Xs¶bmWv fix sNbvXXv.  A{]Imcw sNbvXXv 10.02.09þembncp¶p.  Snbmsâ ]iphnsâ R§fpsS Hm^okn kq£n¨ncp¶ tcJIÄ  ]cntim[n¨v    ]iphns\ identify sNbvXmWv ]pXnb ear tag fix sNbvXn«pÅXv.  RetagþsNbvX hnhcw insurance companyþsb Rm³ tcJmaqew Adnbn¨n«p­v.  ]n¶oSv Sn ]ip N¯p t]mbn«pÅXmWv.  AXnsâ postmortemþRm³ \S¯nbn«pÅXmWv.

                        14. It is pertinent to note that Ext.B1(a) is a contract between the Animal Husbandry Department and opposite party for providing insurance coverage to milch cows.  The ear tag fixation, retag, identification valuation, postmortem, all the requisite duties has been done only by veterinary surgeons of Animal Husbandry Department.  In this PW1 has done all the said duties to the insured cow.  It is seen that ear tag was lost on 10.2.09.  Ext.A3 shows that re-taged the cow and the matter has informed to opposite party within time.  In Ext.A2 claim form also disclosed the fixation of new tag.  Therefore, PW1 complied Ext.B1(a) Clause which is a precondition for getting claim is stated as follows:  “If the ear tag is lost during the currency of the policy, another tag shall be applied on the same day itself and the matter shall be informed to the company in writing immediately, otherwise claim will not be entertained”.

                        15. In this case, as per B1(a) the proposer of insurance policy is the Animal Husbandry Department and the insurer is opposite party.  The materials on record shows that proposer represented by Veterinary Surgeon complied all the formalities as per Ext. B1(a) but opposite party has not complied their part so far.  They failed to endorse the new tag number in A1 policy.  It is a dereliction or negligence on their part.  It cannot be diverted to complainant.  He is only a beneficiary as per Ext.B1(a).  Therefore non-payment of complainant’s claim and the issues raised by opposite party are irrational and unjust and against the spirit of consumer justice. 

                        16. From the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we came to the view that the object of the insurance policy is not to deprive the bonafide insurer but to accommodate the insured so that the insured got just and reasonable dues.  In this case, the opposite party’s attitude of non-payment of his actual claim is against the accepted norms of settled law.  It is a clear deficiency of service.  Therefore, complaint is maintainable and is allowable with compensation and cost.

                        17. In the result, complaint is allowed, thereby opposite party is directed to pay the claim amount of ` 15,000 (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with 10% interest from the date of filing of this complaint along with a compensation of ` 2,500 (Rupees Two Thousand Five hundred only) and a cost of `1,000 (Rupees One Thousand only).  The amount so awarded is to be paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the whole amount will follow 9% interest from this date till the realization of the whole amount.

                        Declared in the Open Forum on this the 28^th day of May, 2011.

                                                                                                                                     (Sd/-)

                                                                                                                            N. Premkumar  

                                                                                                                     (Member)

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)                   :           (Sd/-) 

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1   :  Dr. Suja. M. Chacko

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1       :  Live Stock (cattle) Insurance policy issued by opposite party to the  

              complainant. 

A2       :  Photocopy of cattle claim form issued by Dr. Suja. M. Chacko, 

              Veterinary Surgeon to the complainant. 

A3       :  Carbon copy of letter issued by Dr. Suja. M. Chacko, Veterinary Surgeon to the 

              opposite party.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:

DW1   :  Punnoose. K.K.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:

B1       :  True copy of the Live Stock (cattle) Insurance Policy issued by the 

             opposite party to the complainant. 

B1(a) :  Photocopy of memorandum of understanding between the Animal 

             Husbandry Department (Govt. of Kerala) and the opposite party.

                                                                                                                          (By Order)

                                                                                                               Senior Superintendent.

Copy to:-   (1) Thankappan Nair, Parappallil Veedu, Kollabhagom.P.O.,

                     Thottapuzhassery Village, Pathanamthitta.

       (2) Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,

                      City Branch Office, Ramakrishna Building, Aristo Junction,

                      Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 001.

                    (3) The Stock File.