KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FA.09/09 JUDGMENT DATED: 19.8.09 Appeal fil;ed against the order passed by CDRF, Kozhikode in CC.203/07 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER The M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Rep by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, : APPELLANT Thakaraparambu, Thiurvananthpauram. (By Adv.Varkala .B.Ravikumnar) Vs. Muhammed.K., : RESPONDENT Nayikkundathil, Chakkalakkal.P.O., Padanilam, Kozhikode. (By Adv.R.Ajaykumar) JUDGMENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF. Kozhikode in the file of CC.No.203/07 dated 18th November 2008. The appellant is the opposite party. In short the complainant is a agriculturists. He had taken a livestock cattle insurance policy from the opposite party for a cow. Unfortunately the cow died on 20.4.07 and after the death of the cow, ear tag had lost. For this reason opposite party had repudiated the claim. The complainant assures that the cow’s tag No. is 16499 and the cow, which is reported to have been dead is the cow with the tag No.16499. The veterinary doctor has given death certificate to the effect that cow which was died was the same with the tag No.16499 as the same doctor had come to check up the cow on several times. Panchayat President, Ward member and other neighbours have certified that died cow is one and same as the cow with tag No. 16499. But the opposite party had repudiated the claim. Hence this complaint. The opposite party had taken before the Forum below and filed their version. They contended that the complaint is not maintainable and denies all the allegations and averments in the petition. The opposite party admits that they were having issued policy No.441003/47/2007/8 to complainant insuring his cow for the period from 3.5.06 to 2.5.07. Opposite party also admits that the complainant had lodged the claim for Rs.10000/- with opposite party stating that the insured cow died on 26.4.07. But the complainant did not produce ear tag of the cow. As per the condition No.4 of the policy issued to the complainant the insurer is not liable for any claim if the insured animal is found without ear tag. The opposite party had repudiated the claim that for the policy conditions “No tag No claim” as mentioned in the policy schedule. Hence the opposite party prays to dismiss the petition with cost. For the complainant PW1 was examined and Exs. A1 to A9 were marked. No oral evidence adduced by the opposite party and Ext.B1 was marked on opposite party side. The Forum below allowed the petition and directed the opposite party insurance Company to pay the amount of Rs.10000/- the claim amount to the complainant and a cost of Rs.250/-. The appellant prefers this appeal from the above impugned order passed by the Forum below. On this day the appeal came before this Commission, the counsel for appellant and respondent are present. The counsel for the appellant argued on grounds of appeal memorandum that there is no tag available to the appellant for the identification of the deceased cow. The submission from the counsel for the appellant is that, as per the policy conditions insurer have no right to came any insurance in the absence of a tag of his insured cow. Counsel invited the attention of this Commission that there is a clause in the policy conditions(Ext.B1) “No tag No claim”. The counsel for the respondents submitted that the tag was lost. But the very same cow died. There is no dispute regarding the death of the cow; which was raised by appellant/opposite parties both before the Forum or before this Commission. The counsel for the appellant strictly argued that a tag is a must for the settlement of the claim. Otherwise the company is not liable to pay any compensation to the insurer. The death of the cow was admitted by the appellant which was within the policy period. The appellant/opposite party has not taken any steps to investigate that the died insured cow was whether or any other cow. If any attempt for tamper the real fact or any other fabrication. They have no such case. The insurance company is taking a hyper technicality. As per the evidence adduced by the complainant it seen that veterinary doctor had issued proper certificate because he was sure that the cow which was died, or the same cow which the complainant had taken livestock policy with the opposite party. The Panchayat President and the Ward member and other neighbours also given the statement that it is the very same cow, which was insured with the opposite party, which had died. The postmortum report mentioned Ext.A7. In Ext.A7 the ear tag number written as 16499. But it shows the tag was lost. A cow is a animal not possible to keep it in the safe custody in the house like a cat or small pets. It is a large animal. It is wandering and eating grass. Nobody can strictly say that a cow is can be keep with the tag in safe always. There is a ample opportunity to lose it. The appellant Company is comparing this tag as a earning of a women. This Commission is seeing that the view taken by the Forum below is legal and acceptable. Hence a order passed by the Forum below is legally sustainable. We appreciate the consumer friendly attitude of the Forum below. The Consumer Forum established as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act to ensure social justice to the consumers. No doubt that this is a socially beneficial legislation. We are unhappy about such a attitude taken by the appellant Insurance Company. How the livestock is became attractive in the state of Kerala this type of hassassments will be totally effected our traditional livestock farmers. We decide to give some relief to them through this case. In the result this appeal is dismissed and the order passed by the Forum below is confirmed. Both parties are directed to suffer their own costs. SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
......................SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA | | 
