By Smt. Saji Mathew, Member:

The gist of the complaint is as follows:- The Complainant had insured the cow with the 1^st Opposite Party in the year 2007. For two years, he remitted the yearly premium of Rs. 629/-. After that the cow was found in capable of conceiving even after artificial insemination. The veterinary doctor after examination certified that there is no chance of conceiving and as per the recommendation of the doctor, the cow was sold for Rs.2,800/-.

2. The Complainant has submitted a claim for the insurance amount with the 2^nd Opposite Party with all necessary documents and the ear tag of the cow. But after some days the 1^st Opposite Party informed the Complainant that the claim cannot be settled because of the absence of the ear tag of the cow. The 2^nd Opposite Party affirmed that he has sent all necessary documents with the ear tag to the 1^st Opposite Party. The Complainant could not get the claim due to the deficiency in service on the side of the Opposite Parties. Hence the Complainant prays for an order directing the Opposite Parties to pay the insurance amount of Rs.20,000/- and a compensation of Rs.5,000/-.

3. The 1^st Opposite Party filed version and admitted the policy. The Complainant submitted a claim through the 2^nd Opposite Party. But even though it is mentioned that connected records are attached along with claim form, no ear tag was attached with the claim form. This matter was informed to the 2^nd Opposite Party and they sent a letter dated 14.12.2009 stating that second opinion ear tag and sale letter is attached along with the said letter. But in fact no ear tag was attached along with the said letter. Since no ear tag was received, the claim was repudiated and information was given to the 2^nd Opposite Party. Besides the above mentioned reason for repudiating the claim, the 1^st Opposite Party stated that the disability of the cow is only partial and temporary. If proper treatment was provided, the infertility would have been cured. The value of the cow shown by the complainant is not correct. The compensation was claimed without deducting the sale price of the cow. Therefore the 1^st Opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint.

4. The 2^nd Opposite Party filed version and stated that they have sent the doctors certificates second opinion certificate, sale letter and ear tag to the 1^st Opposite Party through Professional Couriers Pulpally on 15.12.2009. There is no deficiency in service on their side.

5. The 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Party also filed version stating that they are not liable to pay any amount to the Complainant and prayed the complaint may be dismissed as against them.

6. The Complainant was examined as PW1 and documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A8 on the side of the Complainant. 1^st Opposite Party was examined as OPW1 and documents were marked as Exts.B1, B1(a) and B1(b). No oral evidence was adduced for 2^nd Opposite Party to 4^th Opposite Party.

7. The matters to be considered are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the Opposite parties?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for any relief?

    

8. Point No.1:- Ext.B1 series, the letter sent by 2^nd Opposite Party to the 1^st Opposite Party affirms that the ear tag with other documents was sent to the 1^st Opposite Party. Ext.B1(a) shows that the cow was insured for Rs.20,000/- and Ext.B1 (b) shows that the cow was having total and permanent disability. The 1^st Opposite Party repudiated the claim only on the ground that ear tag was not attached with the claim. OPW1 could not say who have opened the cover sent by the 2^nd Opposite Party. Hundreds of couriers were received at the office of 1^st Opposite Party and there is chance that the tag was missed or miss placed at the office of the 1^st Opposite Party. Hence the point No.1 is found against the 1^st Opposite Party.

9. Point No.2:- Ext.A6 and Ext.B1 (b) shows the value of the cow after disablement as Rs.3,000/-. Insurance company represents that for claim for permanent total disablement only 75% of the sum insured can be allowed. But no such condition is seen incorporated with condition attached to the policy. From the insured amount, an amount of Rs.3,000/- should be substracted.

Hence the 1^st Opposite Party is directed to give the Complainant an amount of Rs.17,000/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand only) to the Complainant within 30 days of the receipt of this order. 1^st Opposite Party is also directed to pay an interest on the amount at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of order till payment. No order as to cost or compensation.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 28^th December 2010.

Date of filing:12.08.2010.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1. Thankachan Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. Mathew Paul. Branch Manager, National Insurance, Kalpetta.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Copy of Valuation Certificate. dt:26.10.2009.

A2. Copy of Certificate. dt:08.12.2009.

A3. Copy of Letter.

A4. Copy of Policy.

A5. Copy of Certificate. dt:14.10.2009.

A6. Copy of Permanent Total Disability Certificate.

A7. Copy of Certificate.

A8. Copy of Claim for loss of Live Stock.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

B1 series. Copy of Letter and Certificates.

B1(a) series. Copy of Policy and Letters.

B1(b) series. Copy of Certificate.