BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PRESENT SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No. 352/2001 Complainant:
N. Balakrishna Pillai, Vadakke Ayampurathu Veedu, Anacode, Panniyodu P.O, Kuzhakkadu Muri, Veeranakavu Village, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. K. Radhakrishnan)
Opposite parties: National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch I, Post Box No. 60, Soundarya Building, II Floor, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram-1.
(By adv. M. Nizamudeen)
The Thiruvananthapuram Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. No. T. 170, Sangeeth Nagar, Thycaud P.O, Thiruvananthapuram represented by its Secretary.
(By adv. C.S. Vijayachandran Nair)
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 10.01.2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 25.03.2009, the Forum on 30.04.2009 delivered the following: ORDER
SMT. BEENAKUMARI .A : MEMBER
The complainant is a member of 2nd opposite party as per membership No. 23652. The complainant availed a loan of Rs. 12000/- under IRDP scheme from the 2nd opposite party as per loan No. DDI 48/95 and BL 10/95 in the year 1995 for purchasing two cows. The complainant purchased two milk cows by fully utilising the loan amount as per the conditions stipulated by the 2nd opposite party. The above said cows were duly insured with the 1st opposite party through the 2nd opposite party in the name of complainant under policy No. 570201/47/94/00524/94 as per the cattle insurance policy certificate bearing No. 003639 dated 10th March 1995 for a period of five years. Thus the policy period extends from 11.03.1995 to 10.03.2000. The complainant was repaying the loan amount in instalments from the income derived from the sale of milk of the above said cows purchased out of the loan amount. While so, the above said cows died due to disease and post-mortem was conducted by the Veterinary surgeon. Complainant requested the 2nd opposite party to take steps to claim insurance benefit from 1st opposite party for and on behalf of the complainant. The complainant submitted all connected documents before the 2nd opposite to forward the same to the 1st opposite party for considering insurance claim. The 2nd opposite party had not taken effective steps to claim or attain insurance benefit. Instead, the 2nd opposite party was sending repeated notice to the complainant for the repayment of loan amount. There is negligence and deficiency of service on the part of 2nd opposite party to the complainant. Now revenue recovery proceedings are initiated by the 2nd opposite party against this complainant. The 1st opposite party denied the insurance claim of the complainant inspite of repeated requests. The 1st opposite party violated the policy conditions and caused much severe mental agony and economic loss to the complainant. The complainant approached the 1st opposite party several times demanding the insured amount of the deceased cattle. Their attitude is also unsatisfactory. There is deficiency of service to the complainant on the part of the 1st opposite party since they were not ready to hear the grievance of the complainant. 1st opposite party National Insurance Co. Ltd filed their version contending that the complaint is barred by limitation. The opposite party had repudiated the claim submitted by the complainant on 27.01.1998 and the complainant filed this complaint after the lapse of two years i.e, on 22.08.2001. On that sole ground the complaint is liable to be dismissed. They also contended that the cause of death as per the report of the veterinary surgeon was debility. That is not covered under the policy issued to the complainant. Death due to disease alone is covered under the policy. And also they stated that they have not violated the policy conditions and no loss has been caused to the complainant by the 1st opposite party. Hence they prayed for dismissal of the claim.
The 2nd opposite party Trivandrum Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank also filed their version. The 2nd opposite party admitted the loan transaction of the complainant with the 2nd opposite party. They stated that the complainant has not remitted the loan amount as per the conditions of the loan agreement. The complainant is a wilful defaulter and need not repay the loan amount as per schedule. The 2nd opposite party stated that the insurance amount includes the loan amount. The 2nd opposite party denied the statement of the complainant that the 2nd opposite party had not taken effective steps to claim or attain insurance benefit. The 2nd opposite party has complied with all the requirements of the complainant and the complainant was directed to contact the insurance office. The 2nd opposite party is not in a position to say the denial of the insurance claim. The 2nd opposite party has not received the insurance claim till date. The complainant filed the complaint before this Forum only after receiving the notice of the sale officer on 14.06.2000. The 2nd opposite party stated that this complaint against the 2nd opposite party is not maintainable and also they stated that the suit is bad for non issuance of Sec. 80 notice as per Civil Procedure Code.
In this case complainant and opposite parties filed proof affidavits. From the complainant's side insurance policy certificate was marked as Ext. P1 and the 1st opposite party produced 4 documents and that were marked as Exts. D1 to D4.
Points that would arise for consideration are:- Whether the complaint is barred by limitation? Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?
Points (i) to (iii):- In this case the complainant argued that as per the insurance policy he is entitled to get the benefit of his insured cows which died within the policy period. In this case there is no dispute regarding the existence of policy. As per the post-mortem report the cause of death was 'debility'. As per the 1st opposite party this is not covered under the policy conditions. As per Ext. P1 policy certificate the insured should die due to accident or diseases (including Rinderpest, Blackquarter, Haemorrhagic Septicaemia, Anthrax Foot and mouth disease and Theilariasis). As per Ext. D1 document the Veterinary certificate shows that the cause of death was debility. Debility is not a disease and does not come under the policy condition. Nowhere in the post-mortem report it is stated that the cause of debility is due to any diseases. Normally the cause of debility is due to insufficient food to maintain its life or debility due to disease. Moreover the condition of the carcass is stated as emaciated in Ext. D1. From the above, there is no evidence before us to conclude that the cows in dispute were suffering from any diseases to be covered under the policy conditions. The complainant has miserably failed to establish his complaint with sufficient evidence. Hence as per policy conditions the complainant is not entitled to get the benefit. The opposite party repudiated the claim on that ground and the repudiation made by the 1st opposite party is legal and valid. As per D3, the copy of repudiation letter, the repudiation was made on 27.01.1998. The complainant filed this complaint before this Forum only on 22.08.2001, i.e; after two years. The complainant has not produced any records or adduced any evidence to show that there was continuous cause of action. Hence the complaint is barred by limitation also. In this case the complainant sought no relief against 2nd opposite party. Hence no need for further discussion. Hence the complaint is dismissed.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30th day of April 2009. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 352/2001 APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : NIL II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Copy of Cattle Insurance Policy Certificate dated 10.03.95.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS : NIL IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS : D1 - Copy of Veterinary Certificate dated 09.12.1997. D2 - Copy of post-mortem certificate. D3 - Copy of repudiation letter dated 27.01.1998. D4 - Copy of Cattle Insurance Policy
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
