Per Sri M.V.L.Radha Krishna Murthy, Member:

This complaint is filed u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, praying to award Rs.46,733-50ps in favour of complainant and against opposite party.  

2.      The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

          Complainant insured his she buffaloe with opposite party for Rs.20,000/- and an ear tag No.06271 was stitched to the said cattle.  The said cattle suffered with ill health and it was informed to the Veterinary Assistant, Guttikonda by the complainant for treatment.  During the course of treatment the said cattle died on 04-10-11 due to hypoglycemia.  The ear tag was lost due to shaking of legs and body at the time of death of she buffaloe.  After the death of she buffaloe the complainant informed the same to opposite party on 04-10-11.  The opposite party verified the same and took photographs of dead body of she buffaloe and the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon conducted postmortem in the presence of opposite party persons and mediators on 04-10-11 and issued postmortem report.  At the time of conducting postmortem the doctor cut the ear and gave it to the complainant which is with the complainant at present. 

        The complainant visited the office of opposite party several times and opposite party has been postponing the matter from time to time and lastly the opposite party got issued reply on 09-02-12 to the complainant with a ground that “Not tagged and No Claim”.  The opposite party intentionally and wantonly avoided to play the claim amount to the complainant.   The death of she buffaloe occurred during the period of policy.  The opposite party committed deficiency of service by repudiating the claim of the complainant.  Hence the complaint.  

3.      The opposite party filed its version which in brief is as follows : 

        The complaint is not maintainable at Law and on facts of the case.  The allegations of the complaint are denied and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  The opposite party entered into a memorandum of understanding with C.E.O.A.P. Live Stock Development Agency, Hyderabad on 30-10-2010.  As per column No.10 of MOU the ear tag applied to the animal should be surrendered.  The condition of no tag and no claim will be applied if the tag is not surrendered.  Immediately after the incident opposite party deputed a Surveyor for investigation and accordingly the Surveyor/Loss Assessor gave report dated 12-10-11 to the opposite party.  As per his report there is no ear tag to the ears of dead animal and stated that the dead animal is not an insured animal.  The opposite party issued a letter dated 09-02-12 to the complainant informing that as per the terms and conditions of the policy “no tag and no claim” and hence the claim was treated as no claim and it was received by the complainant.  Complainant filed this complaint with a mollified intension to gain compensation from this opposite party.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and hence this complaint may be dismissed with the costs.    

4.      Complainant and opposite party filed their respective affidavits in support of their versions, reiterating the same. 

5.     On behalf of the complainant Exs.A-1 to A-4 are marked.  On behalf of opposite party Exs.B-1 to B-3 are marked. 

6.      Now the points that arise for consideration are

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?

1. To what relief the complainant is entitled to? 

7.      POINT NO. 1:-   The case of the complainant is that he insured his she buffaloe with opposite party for Rs.20,000/- and that due to illness during the course of treatment the said she buffaloe died on         04-10-11 during the subsistence of the policy and that the ear tag of the buffaloe was lost while it was struggling at the time of death, that the opposite party has repudiated his claim on the ground “no tag no claim”. 

8.      The case of opposite party is that as per clause 10 of MOU the ear tag of the dead animal shall be surrendered for settlement of the claim by the opposite party.  But complainant has not submitted the ear tag of the dead animal.  Hence the claim was treated as no claim and informed the same through a letter dated 09-02-12, hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party in settling the claim of the complainant. 

9.      There was a memorandum of understanding between the opposite party and the C.E.O. of Andhra Pradesh Live Stock Development Agency, Hyderabad, copy of which was marked as          Ex.B-2.  As per clause (d) of condition 10 of Ex.B-2 MOU the ear tag applied to the animal should be surrendered.  The condition of no tag and no claim will be applied if the tag is not surrendered.  The said condition was also mentioned on the face of the insurance policy      Ex.B-1.  The investigator appointed by opposite party gave report under Ex.B-3, wherein he has mentioned in conclusion para of the said report as follows : 

“The death claim of the insured animal (cattle) is genuine.  But the dead she buffalo had not ear tag.  Hence I opinioned that the claim may not be admissible as under “NO TAG NO CLAIM”.

Further the Surveyor in his remarks column in the said report mentioned as follows : 

        “The ear tag is that when the male piece must be fastened with female piece is know as ear tag. 

          In this claim, we can’t decide whether the dead animal is insurance animal or not. 

          The claim may be processed as per merits and demerits of the case.”

Thus the Surveyor in conclusion column has mentioned that the death claim of insured animal (Cattle) is genuine and mentioned in remarks column stating that in this claim we can’t decide whether the dead animal is insurance animal or not.  Thus the report of the Surveyor Ex.B-3 is contradictory. 

         According to the complainant during the course of treatment his cattle died and at the time of death the animal struggled and during that struggle the ear tag was lost.  But the Doctor who conducted the postmortem has mentioned the tag No. of the dead animal as 06271 in his postmortem report Ex.A-2.  The said doctor has also mentioned the ear tag Number of the dead animal in the death certificate given in the claim form which was marked as Ex.A-3 also.  When the ear tag of the animal was lost before death during the struggle by the dead animal, we are unable to understand as to how the doctor who conducted postmortem could able to mention the ear tag Number in Exs.A-2 postmortem certificate  & A-3 death certificate in claim form.  Further the cause of death of the dead animal was mentioned as “HYPOGLYCEMIA” in Ex.A-2 post mortem certificate issued by Doctor, whereas the cause of death of the dead animal was noted as “TRYPANOSOMISIS” in Ex.A-3 death certificate contained in the claim form by the same Doctor.  Thus the Doctor who conducted postmortem has given different diseases as cause of death in Exs.A-2 & A-3 as mentioned above.  Thus the cause of death of the animal was also contradictory. 

        During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the complainant in support of his case relied on the following decisions : 

1. I (2005) CPJ 265 Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur, between Keshav Prasad Shukla and United India Insurance Co.Ltd., & another. 
2. I (2005) CPJ 334 Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun, between Govind Singh Rana and New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
3. I (2005) CPJ 412 Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun, between New India Assurance Co.Ltd., and Kitab Singh. 
4. IV (2004) CPJ 158 Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun, between New India Assurance Co.Ltd., and Surtu and another. 
5. II (2011) CPJ 267 Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvanthapuram, between K.E.James and United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
6. III (2011) CPJ 371 Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur, between New India Assurance Company Ltd., and Nanhuram and another. 
7. Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, between United India Insurance Company Ltd., and Thilakamma
8. I (2009) CPJ 159 Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun, between New India Assurance Company Limited and Dinesh Singh & another. 

The counsel for opposite party in support of their case relied on the following decision :

        “ II (2202) CPJ 72, Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow, between United India Insurance Company Ltd., and Banbari”. 

In the present case on hand complainant failed to surrender the ear tag of the dead animal.  Further the report of Investigator Ex.B-3 and  Ex.A-2 postmortem report and Ex.A-3 death certificate issued by Veterinary Assistant Surgeon in claim form, as already stated above are containing contradictory statements.  Therefore the bonafiedies of Exs.B-3,A-2 & A-3 are doubtful.  Therefore, in view of the above said contradictions and in the absence of ear tag, the citations relied on by the counsel for complainant are distinguishable to the facts of the present case and they are not applicable.  Further as already stated above on the face of the policy Ex.B-1 the condition regarding the ear tag is noted as “Tag should be surrendered at the time of claim, otherwise it will be treated as no claim”.  The repudiation of the claim of the complainant under Ex.A-4 is in accordance with the above said term of policy and the same was informed to the complainant in about three months from the date of death of the cattle.  Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the foregoing discussion, we cannot find any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.    Hence opposite party is not liable for the amount claimed by the complainant.  Accordingly this point is answered. 

10.    POINT NO.2:-    in view of the foregoing discussion on point No.1 the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

11.    In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  But in the circumstances of the case, each party shall bear their own costs. 

Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 21^st day of November, 2012.

   Sd/-XXX                       Sd/-XXX                           Sd/-XXX

MEMBER                        MEMBER                           PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant  :

For Opposite Party  :

Sd/-XXX

PRESIDENT