08.10.2024:

ORDER

Delivered by Mr.K.B.Sangannanavar. Prl.DJ (R) Judicial Member.

01.    This is an Appeal filed by complainant in C.C. No.119/2021 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandya, aggrieved by the order dated: 07.07.2022.

02.    The parties to this Appeal will be referred to as their rank assigned to them by the District Commission.

03.    The Commission examined the grounds of appeal, Impugned order, appeal papers and heard Learned Counsels.

04.    Now the point that arise for consideration of this Commission would be:

“Whether the impugned order dated: 07.07.2022 passed in C.C. No.119/2021 does call for any interference of this Commission for the grounds set out in the Appeal Memo?”

05.    It is an undisputed fact that, complainant got insured his cow breed JRS ear tag No.390026/433601 with opposite party No.3 on 01.09.2020 for the period from 01.09.2020 to 31.08.2021.  The sum assured was Rs.40,000/-.  The insured cow during the period of insurance was suffering from disease from 05.02.2021 and died on 11.02.2021 which in fact has not disputed at all.  The opposite party, in particular, opposite party No.3 the insurer has settled for Rs.30,000/- as against Rs.40,000/-, which according to complainant is unjust and in this regard he has raised a consumer complaint to give direction to opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/- and to pay amount of compensation for rendering deficiency of service and to award cost.  Although opposite parties have contested the complaint did not disputed obtaining of insurance policy in respect of cow in question and settling of the dispute for Rs.30,000/- which according to opposite party No.3 insured, the insurer was on the basis of certificate issued by opposite party No.2  Dr. Devendra Choudri, Veterinary Doctor.  Opposite party No.1 is the Secretary of Milk Producers Co-operative Society Limited through him the claim was processed and settled for Rs.30,000/- on the basis of valuation made by opposite party No.2.  The complainant submits that, liability if any is neither on the opposite party No.1 or opposite party No.2 since the dispute is between complainant and opposite party No.3, as their relationship is that of insured and insurer which could be acceptable. 

06.    We have examined Livestock Claim Form, proposal form and Cattle claim, wherein found the valuation of the cow is made at Rs.40,000/- and it was accepted by opposite party No.3 that its value was Rs.40,000/- and the policy received on such terms and conditions to indemnify the loss at   Rs.40,000/- and when cow died during the period of insurance opposite party insured is bound to indemnify at Rs.40,000/-. In other words they are bound by the terms and conditions of the policy which was not at all considered by the DCDRC although sufficient   materials placed on record.   In other words opposite party No.3 is bound to indemnify the loss of cow on account of death at Rs.40,000/- which was the sum assured and now cannot contend that, it was settled for Rs.30,000/- as against Rs.40,000/- on the basis of certificate of valuation of opposite party No.2.  If at all the valuation of the cow in question found to be disputed could have made at the time of proposal, was not considered by the DCDRC.  In this regard learned counsel for appellant also rightly submits, if contention of the insurer could be acceptable, if for example for any reasons Doctor value the cow at Rs.60,000/- and issue a certificate, would they indemnify beyond  Rs.40,000/-,  as such in our view insurer is bound by the policy terms and conditions is liable to indemnify as agreed at Rs.40,000/-, was  not all considered by the DCDRC.  In such view of the matter we are of the view, dismissal of the complaint by DCDRC has to be held contrary to facts and law is liable to be set aside.  Hence proceed to allow the Appeal, consequently set aside the order dated: 07.07.2022 passed in CC No.119/2021 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandya, as a result allowed the complaint No.119/2021 in part and directed opposite party No.3 to pay Rs.10,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6.5% per annum from 16.07.2021 till realization and do pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards rendering deficiency of service and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation within 45 days, failing which the amount so awarded also carry interest at the rate of 6.5% per annum from the date of default  till realization.  The complaint is hereby dismissed as against OP Nos.1 & 2 directing them to bear their own costs.   

07.    Send copy of the appeal order to parties and the concerned DCDRF.

            Sd/-                                                       Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                            JUDICIAL MEMBER

KNMP*