By. Smt. Bindu. R, President:
This complaint is filed by Ammad. P, S/o. Ali, Puthilon House, Kunjhome Post, Porlom, Mananthavady initialy against Niravilpuzha Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana Sangam as Opposite Party and subsequently impleaded the New India Assurance Company Limited, Calicut as supplemental Opposite Party No.2 in the case as per the Order in I.A.721/2022 dated 19.01.2023.
2. The gist of the complaint is that the Complainant is a diary farmer who had insured his cow coming under the Category FH with the Opposite Party No.2 through the Opposite Party No.1, the latter where the Complainant is an A Class Member. The Complainant states that he had purchased a cattle belonging to FH Category (contradictory stated as OA category in the Chief Affidavit) for Rs.1,00,000/- and on 30.07.2018 the Complainant insured the same. According to the Complainant the cattle fell ill during August 2019 and was treated by Dr. Lakshmi. S. Aravind of Mananthavady, Veterinary Hospital and while so, the cattle died on 04.09.2018. Complainant states that the post mortem report says that there was cyst in the stomach and the cattle had some lung problems. After the death of the cattle, the Complainant, even though contacted the Opposite Party (only one Opposite Party in the Party array at that time) on several occasions, no steps were taken by the Opposite Party. Complainant states that thereafter when the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party, it was informed by the Opposite Party that the Complainant is not entitled for the claim which caused mental agony to the Complainant. According to the Complainant, after purchase of the cattle, the Officers from the Opposite Party saw the cattle and it is after obtaining the medical Certificate etc, the cattle was insured. The said act of the Opposite Party amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from their side and hence the complaint. The complaint was filed impleading the Opposite Party No.1 alone in the party array claiming compensation of Rs.30,000/- and for other reliefs.
3. Upon notice, Opposite Party entered into appearance and filed their version. The Opposite Party contented that the statement of the Complainant that he is a diary farmer and the Complainant used to sell the milk in the Opposite Party society is not fully correct. According to the Opposite Party, the Complainant had not given milk to the Opposite Party society after June 2018. The statement that the Complainant had insured his cow with the Opposite Party Society on 30.07.2018 for Rs.1,00,000/- is denied by the Opposite Party. According to the Opposite Party the Complainant had insured the cow with New India Assurance Company, Kozhikode Division as per Milma Pasumithra Suraksha Scheme. The Opposite Party denied the allegation regarding the disease of the cow and the consultation of Dr. Lakshmi. S. Aravind and the consequent death of the cow, as Opposite Party has no direct knowledge about these facts. The Opposite Party contented that the Complainant had not approached the Opposite Party for compensation after the death of his cow and the allegation that no steps were taken by the Opposite Party and thereby caused inconveniences to the Complainant are denied. It is also stated by Opposite Party that since Insurance Company is not made a Party, the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary Parties. It is also stated in the version of the Opposite Party that the Complainant approached Opposite Party for insuring the cow belonging to the Complainant with Malabar Mekhala Union (MILMA) New India Assurance Company, Kozhikode Division for Rs.1,00,000/- and the application was sent to the Insurance Company then and there. Thereafter the Complainant approached Opposite Party with claim form stating that the cow is dead and filed the form along with connected documents. From the Complainant it was learnt that the cow died one month prior to the submission of claim form and fact of death is not informed to the Insurance Company in time. Hence it was informed to the Complainant that since the death is not informed to the Insurance Company in time, there may be some difficulty in getting the claim and it was also informed to the Complainant that since the society had no direct knowledge about the death of the cow they cannot recommend the same. Hence on 29.10.2018, the Complainant got back the claim form and the other details from Opposite Party to submit the same directly to the Insurance Company. According to Opposite Party the only duty of Opposite Party is to collect the premium and the proposal form and other documents from the farmers and submit the same to the Insurance Company and also to submit the insurance claim if any submitted by the farmers with connected documents. It is up to the Insurance Company to include the name of diary farmer into the scheme and to disburse the compensation if they are entitled. It is stated by the Opposite Party that the Opposite Party is not liable for any compensation and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory costs.
4. The Complainant additionally impleaded the New India Assurance Company Limited as supplemental Opposite Party No.2. As per the version of Opposite Party No.2 the Opposite Party No.1 has informed the Opposite Party No.2 that “the cow belonging to the Complainant was died before taking the insurance. With the assistance of the Veterinary Doctor the Complainant obtained insurance policy after the death of the cow. Thereafter the Complainant submitted the claim form to the Opposite Party No.1 after putting the date of death as after the date of commencement of policy. Hence on 12.10.2018 this matter was placed before the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Opposite Party No.1. Since the Board of Directors convinced that this claim is false and it is only an attempt to cheat, all documents submitted by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.1 was returned to the Complainant”. According to the Opposite Party No.2, the policy was issued based on principle “utmost good faith” but the Complainant and the Veterinary Surgeon were played fraud and committed breach of trust. Opposite Party No.2 contented that there is no deficiency of service on their part and not liable for any compensation since the Complainant and Veterinary Surgeon obtained the policy of insurance falsely and fraudulently for the cow with ear tag No.420012/985072 covering the period from 30.07.2018 to 29.07.2019 suppressing the fact of the death of the cow before taking the insurance policy. According to the Opposite Party No.2, as per policy condition the insured shall inform the death of the cow immediately to Opposite Party No.2 to examine the carcass, which was not done by the Complainant and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost.
5. Evidences in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A3 series from the side of Complainant and oral evidence of OPW1 and Ext.B1 and B2 from the side of the Opposite Party.
6. The following are the main points to be analyzed in this case to derive into an inference of the fact.
- Whether the Complainant had sustained to any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Parties…?
- If so, the quantum of compensation and costs to be awarded to the Complainant…?
7. Heard Both sides and perused the records.
8. The specific case of the Complainant is that the repudiation of claim regarding the death of the insured cow belonging to the Complainant amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Party. Ext.A1 is the copy of Policy Certificate issued by Opposite Party No.2 for sum insured Rs.1,00,000/-. Ext.A2 is the copy of letter of description of animal claimed for the insurance along with Post mortem Report dated 04.09.2018. Ext.A3 series is the copies of documents along with covering letter dated 22.10.2018 from Opposite Party No.1 addressed to the Complainant stating that the case cannot be recommended for claim since neither the Secretary nor the Committee Members have intimation/knowledge with reference to the death of the cow belonging to him, requesting him to get back the papers from Opposite Party.
9. During cross-examination of the Complainant by Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant deposed that the claim form was submitted to the Opposite Party Society on 08.10.2018 even though the cow was died on 04.09.2018. It is also admitted by the Complainant in the box that Opposite Party No.1 informed him that the claim may reject because of the delayed intimation. It was informed by the Secretary of Opposite Party No.1 that there is suspicious with reference to the death of the cow and the Complainant received the application back from Opposite Party No.1. It is also admitted by the Complainant that the duty of Opposite Party No.1 is to send the claim form to the Insurance Company which is done by them. He had admitted that the form submitted on 08.10 has been received back by the Complainant on 12.10.
10. During cross-examination by Opposite Party No.2, Complainant deposed that he knows the procedure to be adopted when the cow is affected any illness or died. Complainant admitted that the cow is to be treated if it is fell ill and if it dies, the same is to be intimated to the Company on that day itself and in this case the fact of death is not intimated according to the Complainant. He pleads ignorance about the fact that the body could be buried only after examination of the officials. It is admitted by the Complainant that the fact of death was intimated only on 04.10.2018 and he had deposed that the fact of death was informed over phone on that day itself.
11. Secretary of Opposite Party No.1 was examined as OPW1. According to him the Complainant submitted the papers for insuring the cow to the Office of the Society and the cow was not seen by Opposite Party No.1. According to OPW1, if the cow which is insured through the society dies, the same is to be intimated in writing to the Society within 24 hours and the Secretary and the Director of the Governing Body had to examine the cow. In this case the Complainant had not intimated the death of the cow to the Society and hence the cow was not examined by the Officials of Opposite Party No.1. According to OPW1, the Complainant intimated Opposite Party No.1 only on 08.10.2018, that his cow died on 04.09.2018 ie after a month of the incident. Hence the claim form was submitted before the governing body and since nobody had knowledge about the death, the governing body decided not to recommend the case. The OPW1, also stated that since the Complainant is a resident of Thondarnad Panchayath, the Post Mortem is to be conducted by the Surgeon at Thondernad.
12. During cross by Complainant, OPW1 deposed that the insurance was taken without any examination by Opposite Party No.1 and there must be a Certificate of the Doctor stating that the cow is not affected with any diseases. The claim form was also not given from the Society.
13. Considered the entire aspects and the evidences in detail. Both the Opposite Parties are standing against the claim of the Complainant on the ground that even at the time of insuring the cow, the said cow was not existing and at the time of insurance the cow was not examined by Opposite Party No.1 and that the death of the cow was not intimated to the Opposite Parties in time and according to Opposite Party No.1 before taking insurance the cow was not seen by Opposite Party No.1, are not disproved by the Complainant.
14. In these circumstances we find no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice is substantiated by the Complainant against Opposite Parties and Point No.1 is found against the Complainant. Since Point No.1 is found against, Point No.2 is not considered by the Commission.
Hence Consumer Case No.86/2019 is devoid of merit and dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 1st day of March 2024.
Date of Filing:-17.07.2019.
PRESIDENT : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant:-
PW1. Ammad. Agriculture.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
OPW1. Sini. P. U. Secretary, Niravilpuzha Ksheerolpadaka
Sahakarana Sangam.
Exhibits for the Complainant:-
A1. Copy of Cattle Insurance Policy for the period of 30.07.2018 to
29.07.2019.
A2. Copy of Claim Form.
A3(Series). Copy of Letter and policy documents (7 numbers).
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-
B1. Receipt. Dt:29.10.2018
B2. Copy of Minutes Book.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
Kv/-
