By. Smt. Bindu. R, President:

            This complaint is filed by Ponnamma Viswambharan, Karimundayil House, Veliyambham Post, Nadavayal, Pulpally against New India Assurance Company Limited, Represented by Its Branch Manager, Kalpetta Branch, Kalpetta North, Kalpetta Post, Wayanad as Opposite Party alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

            2.  The Complainant states that the Complainant insured her 5 year aged black and white colour cow belonging to HF Cross Breed having Tag No.420036857254 with the Opposite Party for Rs.65,000/- on 26.08.2021 as per Policy No.76140047210400000114 through Animal Husbandry Department.  The Complainant states that the cow felt ill on 28.03.2022 and died on 31.03.2022 even though the cow was treated properly.  The Complainant states that postmortem was conducted by Dr. K. S. Premlal and thereafter the Complainant had submitted claim along with the details and the Postmortem report on 14.04.2022 to the Opposite Party.  The claim was rejected on 11.08.2022 on the ground that the tag was in the right ear but it is seen in the photo that the ear tag is in the left ear.  It is stated by the Complainant that when the Opposite Party informed the Complainant that photo of the deceased cow with ear tag is needed, the Complainant could not take the said photo as she could not turned down the cow properly hence she had cut down the right ear in which tag was fixed and took photo by keeping the same on the left side of the cow, which was informed to the Opposite Party also.  But the Opposite Party was not ready to approve the claim.  The Complainant states that the doctor who had treated and who had conducted postmortem of the cow had mentioned the Tag No. No.420036857254 and it is certified that the deceased cow is having the same Tag number.  The denial of the claim on flimsy grounds amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party and hence the complaint for the claim amount of Rs.65,000/- and for other reliefs.

            3.  Upon notice the Opposite Party entered into appearance and filed version admitting the insurance for the cow bearing ear Tag No.420036/857254 with the Opposite Party.  Only contention taken by the Opposite Party is that at the time of insurance the ear tag was fixed on the right ear of the cow but photos submitted along with the claim form shows that ear tag is on the left side ear.  Hence the insured cattle seems to be different from that of the deceased cattle and hence the claim was repudiated.  The Opposite Party stated that the statement of the Complainant that she could not turned down the cow to take photo and hence the right ear with ear tag was cut and placed on the left side and took the photo etc are false and denied by the Opposite Party.  According to the Opposite Party the Complainant had not proved that the insured cow is dead and hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

            4.  Evidence in this case consists of Ext.A1 to A5 and oral evidences of PW1 and PW2 from the side of the Complainant and Ext.B1 to B3 from the side of the Opposite Party.

            5.   Following are the points to be analyzed in this case to derive into an inference of the facts.

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Party?
2. If so, the Compensation and Cost for which the Complainant is eligible to get.

6.  Heard both sides and perused the records in detail. 

7.  Ext.A1 is the Photograph of the deceased cow with ear tag along with the right ear cut and removed and placed on the left side.  Ext.A2 is the copy of the Claim Application along with Certificate of Postmortem.  Ext.A3 is the Valuation cum Postmortem Certificate.  Ext.A4 is the Claim Repudiation Letter and Ext.A5 is the Policy details of taking insurance of two cows owned by the Complainant.  Ext.B1 is the Copy of Policy details (Same as Ext.A5).  Ext.B2 is the Photograph of the deceased cow and Ext.B3 is the Claim Repudiation Letter. 

8.  During cross-examination of PW1 she deposed that “]iphns\ adn¨nSm³ ]äm¯XpsIm­mWv sNhn apdns¨Sp¯Xv.  CSXp sNhnbn Zzmcap­v AXv Rm³ hm§p¶Xn\p ap³]v I¶pIp«n¡v insurance sNbvXncp¶XmWv.  Rm³ hm§pt¼mÄ Xs¶ tag sNbvXXnsâ Zzmcap­mbncp¶p”.   PW2 is the Doctor who had issued Ext.A2 who deposed that “Ext.A2 document Rm³ issue sNbvXXmWv AXv {]Imcw ear tag No.420036857254 Dff ]iphns\bmWv Postmortem sNbvXXv.  hoWpt]mb ]ip Bbncp¶p. Asphyxia due to lactic acidosis aqeamWv acWs¸«Xv acn¡pt¼mÄ ]ip 8 amkw pregnant Bbncp¶p. acn¡pt¼mÄ present market value 65,000/- Bbncp¶p.  Rm³ Cu ]iphns\ 28.03.2022 apX 30.03.2022 hsc NnInÕn¨ncp¶p.  Postmortem sN¿pt¼mÄ ear tag right ear  Bbncp¶p”.  PW2 deposed that “Ext.A1 {]Imcw ]iphnsâ CSXv `mK¯v sNhn apdn¨v h¨XmbmWv ImWp¶Xv. postmortem sNbvXt¸mÄ sNhn ]cntim[n¨ncp¶p. Right ear  Bbncp¶p ear tag. F´psIm­mWv sNhnapdn¨v CSXp`mK¯v sh¨sX¶v F\n¡dnbnÃ. Tag DÄs¸sSbpff sNhn apdn¨p sh¨XmsW¦nepw CtX ]iphns\ Xs¶bmWv postmortem sNbvXXv ”. 

9. The overall consideration of the evidence adduced and the documents produced shows that the deceased cow is the insured cow with ear tag No.420036857254 owned by the Complainant.  Only objection put forward by the Opposite Party for repudiating the claim is that the ear tag is on the left side of the cow in the photo submitted to the Opposite Party.  The said fact is explained by the Complainant and PW2 and a perusal of the said photograph shows that the contention and explanation of the Complainant is true which is also supported by the evidence of PW2, the Doctor and there is no contra evidence adduced by the Opposite Party.

In these circumstances, the Commission found that the Complainant had proved Point No.1 in her favour and hence the following Orders are passed

1. Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.65,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five Thousand Only) towards the insurance claim.
2. The Opposite Party is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) towards compensation to the Complainant.
3. The Opposite Party is liable to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards cost of the proceedings.

Needless to say that the above ordered amounts are to be paid by the Opposite Party within 30 days on receipt of the copy of the Order otherwise the Opposite Party will be liable for 6% interest from the date of Order till date of realization.

Consumer Case is allowed.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 2^nd day of April 2024.

Date of Filing:-01.12.2022

PRESIDENT   : Sd/-

MEMBER       : Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:-

PW1.              Ponnamma.                                     Cow Farming.

PW2.              Dr. Prema. K. s.                               Senior Veterinary Surgeon.

Witness for the Opposite Party:-

Nil.

Exhibits for the Complainant:-

A1.                  Photograph.

A2.                  Copy of Veterinary Certificate.

A3.                  Copy of Claim Application.                                  Dt:11.04.2022.

A4.                  Claim Repudiation Letter.                                    Dt:11.08.2022.

A5.                  Copy of Cattle Insurance Policy details.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:-

B1.                  Copy of Cattle Insurance Policy details.

B2.                  Photograph.

B3.                  Claim Repudiation Letter.                                    Dt:11.08.2022.

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

                                                                                             ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

                                                                                                  CDRC, WAYANAD.

Kv/-