CDRF Wayanad Civil Station,Kalpetta North Execution Application(EA) No. 08/2006
Dr,Geroge Daniel
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Excel WatchRadio Ellora Time Ltd
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. K GHEEVARGHESE 2. SAJI MATHEW
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
ORDER By Sri.K. Gheevarghese, President: The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint in brief is as follows: The Complainant purchased a milking cow and which was insured with the Opposite party under the Cattle Insurance Scheme, dated 6.8.2004 with Policy No.101602/47/04/00769. The validity of the Policy continuous up to 5.8.2005 on effect from 6.8.2004. The cow died on 10.09.2004. The death was reported to the Opposite party and the Postmortem was conducted by the veterinary Surgeon. The animal was identified also by the Veterinary Surgeon and Evalution Certificate was issued to the Complainant. The Complainant filed an application to get the benefit of Insurance and the Opposite party (Contd......2) -2- rejected the claim and the letter dated, 24.2.2005 was also sent to the Complainant. Reason pointed out for the repudiation of the claim is that the colour of the cow diverse. As per the Insurance Policy the cow belongs to CBHF Black and White. The Postmortem report shows the cow is Bovine CV and black. The Opposite party rejected the claim relying on the difference in report. The Cow was insured for the amount of Rs. 15,000/- . The time of death covers the period of insurance. The ear tag was duly surrendered to the Opposite party. The rejection of the claim benefit is absolutely against the reason and justice. Apart from that it is an unfair trade practice and deficiency on the part of the Complainant. The Opposite party may be directed to give the Complainant the insurance amount along with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and cost to the Complainant. The Opposite party filed version on their appearance. It is averred the cow CBHF black and white was insured by the Opposite party with IP No. 101602/47/04/00769. The policy covers the period from 6.8.2004 to 5.8.2005. Where as the cow which died belonged to the category Bovine CV and black in colour. Certificate of Postmortem and photograph shows difference with the cow which was insured. The repudiation of the claim was on that ground and it was informed to the Complainant also. The Complainant is not entitled to get any relief. There is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite party. The Complaint is to be dismissed with the compensatory cost. Points which are to considered: 1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party. 2. Relief and cost. Point No.1 The Complainant is examined as PW1. The Cattle Insurance Proposal Form is marked (Contd......3) -3- as Ext.C1. The amount insured as per this documents is Rs.15,000/-. The species and breed as specified is Bovine CBHF and colour black and white and the ear tag No. 3707. Ext. C3 series is the Veterinary Certificate issued as the report of postmortem. The tag No, according to this Exhibit is 3707. The doctor who conducted the Postmortem of the died animal is examined as PW2 and the Ext.C3 is issued by this doctor. According him the animal is identified and non descripency is noted in ear tag and moreover the died animal was on the state of lay continuesly for 10 days. The white dots in the ventral portion of the body was noted by him. Anyway the animal is actually identified by ear tag number in the ear tag is one and the same as in the application form. The Opposite party is examined as OPW1. It is deposed that the ear tag is the significant and important thing to identify the animal. Ext. B1 also shows that cow is having white mark in the lower portion of the body and the ear tag tally with the number. From the above inferences it is to be presumed that the animal died is none other than the died one Opposite party's act is a deficiency in service. Point No.2 The cow was insured for an amount of 15,000/- as per Cattle claim form. The liability vested upon the Opposite party is to cover risk and to give the Complainant, the amount of insurance. The repudiation of the claim by the Opposite party is not basing on any reason. The Complainant has to be given Rs. 15,000/- . The insurance amount by the Opposite party. In the result the Opposite party is directed to give the Complainant Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand only). The amount of insurance and the Complainant is also entitled to the compensation of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and the cost of Rs. 1000/- (Contd.......4) -4- (Rupees one thousand only) from the Opposite party. The Opposite party has to give the Complainant this amount within one month from the date of this order. In case of any failure on the part of the Opposite party, Complainant is entitled to execute this order as per the provisions of law. Pronounced in open forum on this the 20th day of February 2008. PRESIDENT: Sd/- MEMBER: Sd/- /True Copy/ PRESIDENT, CDRF WAYANAD. APPENDIX Witnesses for the Complainant PW1 Celine Chacko Complainant PW2 Dr. S. Daniel Veterinary Surgeon Witnesses for the Opposite party OPW1 Jayaprakash. M.D Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Exhibits for the Complainant: A1 Claim Notice Exhibits for the Opposite party C1 Cattle insurance proposal form C2 Policy of United India Insurance Co. C3 Series (2 sides) Veterinary Certificate Dt: 25.9.2003. C4 Cattle claim form C5 Valuation Certificate B1 Photographs PRESIDENT, CDRF WAYANAD.
