KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

FA.431/10

JUDGMENT DATED: 19..01..2011

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                   : PRESIDENT

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR              : MEMBER

United India Insurance Company Ltd.,    : APPELLANTS

Branch Offices Palakkad & Thrissur,

Rep. by Dr.Mohan Shankar,

Sr.Divisional Manager,

United India Insurance Company Ltd.,

Divisional Office-1, LMS Compound,

Trivandrum.

(By Adv.R.Jagadish Kumar)

              Vs.

Satheesh.K.S.,                                          : RESPONDENT

S/o Sreedharan,

Kottungal House,

Mahathma Road,

Venginissery, Paralam.P.O.,

Thrissur – 68001.

(By Adv.S.V.Shaji)

JUDGMENT

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR    : MEMBER

          Appellants are the opposite parties in CC.103/09 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad        who are under directions to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.3,80,000/- being the claim amount together with compensation of Rs.30000/- and Rs.1000/- as cost.

          2. The case of the complainant is that  he is the owner of an elephant named Haridas and he purchased the elephant on 1.9.05.  Complainant insured the elephant with the opposite parties for the period from 7.11.06 to 6.11.2007 for a sum of Rs.3,80,000/-.  The complainant has submitted that the elephant died on 15.6.07 and on intimation to the opposite parties, they deputed an investigator who came to the premises and conducted an inspection and prepared the report.  Though the complainant made the insurance claim before the opposite parties, the opposite parties have taken no action in the claim petition.  Inspite of the fact that a lawyer notice was issued to the opposite parties they refused to disburse the claim amount of the complainant.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties the complaint was filed for directions to pay Rs.3,80,000/- as claim amount and Rs.70,000/- as compensation.

          3. The 1^st opposite party filed version wherein it was admitted that the elephant named Haridas was insured with the 1^st opposite party and that it was due to the non-production of the ownership certificate by Forest Department that the claim was not processed.   It is the case of the 1^st opposite party that the ownership certificate issued by the Forest Department is a mandatory one without which claim can not be entertained.         

          4. The evidence consisted of Exts. A1 to A4 on the side of the complainant.  There was no evidence on the side of the opposite parties.

          5. Heard both sides.  The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued before us that the order of the Forum below is not sustainable either in law or facts. It is his very case that the complainant/respondent had not produced ownership certificate issued by the Forest Department and hence   the action of the opposite parties can be justified in as much as the fact that the ownership certificate issued by the Forest Department is mandatory for entertaining the claim.  It is also his case that in Ext.A1, sale deed produced by the complainant, the value of the elephant is shown as only Rs.2,05,000/-.  He has also relied on the policy condition regarding the salvage loss wherein it is stated that in a case of death of the elephant, the value of the tusks at the time of death    or at the time of proposal which ever is higher is to be deducted from the claim amount.  The compensation amount awarded is also attacked by the learned counsel for the appellants on the ground that the same is exorbitant. 

          6. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below.  He has submitted that the elephant was insured for a sum of Rs.3,80,000/- and the value shown in Ext.A1 can not be taken as a basis for allowing the claim petition  filed by the complainant.  It is also submitted by him that Ext.A1 is a clear cut evidence to show that the complainant is the owner of the elephant and the insistence for a certificate from the Forest Department by the opposite party was without any basis and there was no such condition in the policy.  He has submitted that the amounts ordered by the Forum below are only to be sustained.

          7. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, respondent and also on perusing the records, we find that it is the admitted case of the parties that the elephant was insured with the opposite parties for the period from 7.11.06 to 6.11.2007 and the elephant died during the insured period.  Ext.A1 is relied  upon by the complainant which shows that he is the owner of the deceased elephant.  We also find as per Ext.A1 and A2 the complainant is the owner of the elephant and he has intimated the opposite parties regarding the death of he elephant in time.  Ext.A2 policy is also issued in the name of the complainant.  Hence in all respects we find that the complainant is the owner of the deceased elephant and the insistence of the opposite parties to produce ownership certificate from the Forest Department cannot be considered as genuine and valid.  It is also seen that as per Ext.A1, the value of the elephant is shown as Rs.2,05,000/-.  It is probable that the elephant was insured for a higher amount by the opposite parties.  But for arriving at the value of the elephant Ext.A1 is to be relied on and the value of the elephant is calculated to be Rs.2,05,000/-.  However it is also noted that the opposite parties are entitled to deduct the salvage value of the tusks and teeth of the elephant and it is reasonable that a sum of Rs.30,000/- has to deducted from the value of Rs.2,05,000/- and the complainant is entitled to Rs.1,75,000/- towards the claim amount.  It is further seen that the forum has ordered Rs.30000/- as compensation which is on the higher side.  We find that a sum of Rs.10,000/- will be just and proper to meet the ends of justice.  Cost of Rs.1000/-ordered is sustained.

          In the result the appeal is allowed in part thereby the 2^nd opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant/respondent a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of order of the Forum below with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.1000/-. In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal, parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

          S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                      : MEMBER

          JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU                 : PRESIDENT

ps