CDRF Wayanad Civil Station,Kalpetta North consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/97
Devazya
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Manager,united India Insueance
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. K GHEEVARGHESE 2. P Raveendran 3. SAJI MATHEW
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
By Sri. P. Raveendran, Member. Petition filed Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The petitioner purchased four Bovaine CBHF Cows and insured all the cows with the opposite party for a sum of Rs.25,000/- each. The insurance period of cows having ID No.7166,7198,7168 and 7181 were from 22.8.05 to 21.8.06. The petitioner had paid premium of Rs.4,133/- per cow and had paid a total sum of Rs.16,532/- to the opposite party, on 23.9.05 the cow bearing ID No.7166 was died due to some diseases. The died cow was milking well and had a market value of Rs.32,000/-. Even though the petitioner had intimated the death of the cow and submitted the cattle claim form along with, treatment records and medical bills of deceased cow promptly to the opposite party but the insured sum was not given to the petitioner Contd....2) 2 promptly. At last Rs.18,000/- was sanctioned towards the sum assured for the death of first cow. 2. The second cow bearing ID No.7166 was died on 24.4.06. On the same day opposite party inspected the carcass of the cow and prepared a report and advised the complainant to submit the claim form. There after the petitioner submitted the claim form on 11.5.06 but the opposite party sent an intimation settlement voucher for Rs.12,500/-. So the petitioner sent a lawyer notice on 31.5.06 to the opposite party demanding the full policy amount. On receiving the same, the opposite party sent a reply notice stating that the petitioner is not entitled to get any amount as per the policy. Thereafter the opposite party invited the petitioner for a negotiation and promised to pay Rs.17,500/- if he refrain from legal action. Even though the petitioner was not satisfied with the said amount he received the above amount with protest. Hence the complainant prayed to direct opposite party to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant as compensation and cost of the complaint. 3. The opposite party appeared and filed version. In the version he stated that the cow bearing ear tag No.7181 was died on 23.9.05. The death was intimated to the opposite party, and issued claim form and proceded the claim and paid Rs.18,000/- to the complainant on 16.11.2005 based on the valuation certificate issued by the Veterinary Surgeon. 4. He further stated that there is no latches or delay on the part of the opposite party with respect to the cow bearing ear tag No.7166. This opposite party advised the complainant to sell the cow for meat value and surrender the Ear tag on 13.4.2006. But complainant not sold the cow for meat value and neglected the cow. So the cow died due to latches on the part of the Contd....3) 3 complainant. In the meanwhile the complainant submitted a claim form for claiming compensation as per permanent total disability(P.T.D). Accordingly the claim was proceeded and fixed the compensation based on terms and conditions of the policy as Rs.12,500/- being the 50% of the total sum insured. Based on representations made by the complainant and considering humanitarian ground, the complainant and this opposite party discussed the dispute and reached a full and final settlement for Rs.15,500/-. Later the complainant had undertaken to withdraw the complaint submitted to the District Collector and withdraw the lawyer notice issued claiming compensation. Accordingly the opposite party settled the claim for Rs.17,500/- and payment effected. The complainant had executed all documents with free consent and knowing consequences. There is no latches or deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Hence the complainant is not entitled to get any relief. The complainant had accepted the payment as full and final settlement of claim. The complainant is not entitled to get the balance sum of Rs.14,000/- with 18% interest from the opposite party. Hence the Forum may dismiss this complaint. 5. The points that arise for consideration are: 1) Whether the opposite party has committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practices? 2) Relief and cost? 6. Point No.1. The complainant has filed proof affidavit. He was cross-examined by the counsel of opposite party. Ext. A1 to A4 were also marked. Ext. A1 is the copy of cattle insurance policy of cattle bearing ID No 7181. Ext. A2 is the copy of cattle insurance policy of cattle bearing ID No.7166. Ext. A3 is the copy of lawyer notice sent by the counsel of the Contd....4) 4 complainant to the opposite party with postal receipts. Ext. A4 is the copy of the reply notice sent by the counsel of the opposite party to the counsel of the complainant. 7. Opposite party is examined as OPW1 and Ext. B1 to B12 were marked on the side of the opposite party. Ext. B1 is the cattle claim form in respect of the cow bearing identification tag No.7181. Ext. B2 is the Veterinary certificate in respect of cow bearing tag No.7181. Ext. A3 is the valuation certificate in respect of cow bearing tag No.7181. Ext. B4 is the copy of cattle insurance policy of the cow bearing ID No.7181. Ext. B5 is the claim disbursement voucher dated,16.11.05 issued to the complainant by opposite party. Ext, B6 is the settlement intimation note date.15.11.05. Ext. B7 is the copy of cattle insurance policy of the cow bearing ID tag No.7166. Ext. B8 is the settlement intimation voucher issued by opposite party to the complainant. Ext. B9 is the copy of claim disbursement voucher dated, 10.7.06. Ext. B10 is the letter given by the complainant to the opposite party. Ext. B11 is the copy of reply notice sent by the opposite parties counsel to the complainants counsel Ext. B12 is a letter dated, 6.7.06 given by the complainant to the opposite party. 8. Ext. A1 shows that the cow bearing ear tag No. 7181 is insured with opposite party from 22.8.05 to 21.8.2006. Ext. A2 shows that the cow bearing ear tag No.7166 is insured with opposite party from 22.8.05 to 21.8.06. Ext. A3 is the copy of lawyer notice dated 31.5.2006 sent by the counsel of the complainant to the opposite party. In the notice he stated that his client ie. Complainant insured his clint's cow with opposite party for Rs.25,000/-. The cow died and his client submitted the claim form. But the opposite party sanctioned only Rs.12,500/- instead of Rs.25,000/- Ext. A4 is the reply notice sent by the counsel of opposite party to the counsel of the complainant. In the reply notice it is stated that the injury to Contd.....5 5 the cow resulted in its death was occurred within 15 days of the commencement of policy. As per terms of the policy if it occurred in such close proximity he is not entitled to get the policy amount. This fact was overlook by his clients office and an offer of P.T.D. Claim of Rs.12,500/- was recommended. Hence advise his client not to initiate any unnecessary litigation against the opposite party. 9. Ext. B1 shows that the complainant has submitted cattle claim form to opposite party in respect of the cow ear tag No.7181. Ext. B2 shows that the above cow died on 23.9.05. Ext. B3 shows that the market value of the cow prior to its illness is Rs.18,000/-. Ext. B4 and Ext. A1 are one and the same. Ext. B5, B6 and B8 shows that Rs.18,000/- is sanctioned by the opposite party and the same is received by the complainant. Ext. B7 and Ext. A1 are the same. Ext. B9 shows that the complainant has accepted Rs.17,500/- from opposite party on 10.7.2006. Ext. B11 and Ext. A3 series shows, that there is a dispute between the complainant and opposite party regarding sanctioned amount of insurance claim, of the above cow. Ext. B10 and Ext. B12 shows that the above dispute is settled between the complainant and the opposite party. As per the settlement the opposite party enhanced the amount to 17,500/- instead of Rs.12,500/-. The same is accepted by the complainant and the same is recorded in black and white. At the time of sending the lawyer notice the complainant has no case to raise the claim amount from 18,000/- to 25,000/- in respect of the claim of the cow bearing Ear tag N0.7181. As per the terms the entire market value of the cow prier to illness was sanctioned by opposite party and paid to the complainant. In the above inferences it is held that the point No.1 is found infavour of the opposite party. There is no deficiency of service or untrade practice on the part of opposite party. Contd......6) 6 10. Point No.2: The detail consideration of the point No.2 is not necessary in this circumstances. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 28th day of June 2008 PRESIDENT: Sd/- MEMBER: I Sd/- MEMBER: 11 Sd/- /True copy/ Sd/- PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD. APPENDIX Witness examined for complainant: PW1 Devesya Complainant Witness examined for opposite parties: OPW1 Jayaprakash N.D. Branch Manager Exhibits marked for complainant: A1 Copy of Insurance policy Dt. 22.8.05 A2 Copy of Insurance policy Dt. 22.8.05 A3 Series. Copy of Lawyer notice, postal receipt, AD card. A4 Reply notice. Contd.....7) 7 Exhibits marked for opposite parties: B1 Claim form of cow No.7181 B2 Veterinary Certificate B3 Valuation Certificate B4 Insurance policy of cow bearing ear tag No. 7181 B5 Claim disbursement voucher B6 Settlement intimation notice B7 Cattle Insurance policy of cow bearing ear tag No,7166 B8 Settlement intimation voucher B9 Claim disbursement voucher B10 Letter executed by the complainant to Opposite Party B11 Reply notice B12 Letter executed by the complainant to the Opposite Party.
