D.O.F. 27.12.2010
D.O.O.09.11.2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri. K.Gopalan : President
Smt. K.P.Preethakumari : Member
Smt. M.D.Jessy : Member
Dated this the 9th day of November 2011.
C.C.No.305/2010
T.V.Mohanan,
Madayi Amsom,
Vengra Desom,
Kannur Taluk Complainant
(Rep. by Adv. C.Krishnan)
1. Senior Branch Manger,
United India Insurnace Co. Ltd.
Payyannur Branch,
Shenoy Building,
Temple Road,
Payyannur. Opposite Party
(Rep. by Adv.V.V.Gopinathan)
O R D E R
Sri.K.Gopalan, President
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of `25,000 as the insurance amount and `25,000 as compensation with interest @ 12% p.a with cost of this litigation.
The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: Complainant insured his C.B Breed cow with the opposite party for the period from 30.3.2010 to 29.3.2013 for a sum of `25,000 with an Ear tag No.67407. The price of the cow was `40500. The ear tag fixed was lost some where in the pasture at the time of grazing. So re-tag was done by the Veterinary surgeon of the locality with a number 67430 and the same was informed to the opposite party. The cow happened to die on 9.5.2010. The death had been informed on 10.5.2010 through the veterinary doctor. The claim submitted by the complainant was repudiated on 17.6.2010. It was stated that the ear tag submitted with the claim application is 67407, but the originally allotted one was 67430. But it is not correct. The tag submitted before the company by the complainant was No.67430. Complainant has submitted the certificates issued by the local veterinary doctor, who has identified the cow before and after the death of the cow. The postmortem certificate also submitted. The repudiation is unjustifiable. The complainant and family depend upon this cow for their livelihood. The denial of the insurance amount is a deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.
Pursuant to the notice the opposite party entered appearance and filed version contending as follows: The cow was insured with the opposite party for the period 30.3.2010 to 29.3.2013 for the sum of `25,000 with Ear Tag No.67407. The value of the cow as in the veterinary certificate as `40,500 is not correct. The loss of Ear tag No.67407 and Re tagging the cow with Ear Tag No.67430 was not informed to the opposite party at any point of tie and therefore it was not endorsed in the policy. The averments that Re-tagging No. 67430 was intimated to the opposite party on 26.4.2010 are utterly false. Non intimation of the Re-tagging of the cow leads to a suspicion that this is a colluded act of the complainant with veterinary surgeon who issued certificate and other documents. Since the opposite party has not insured the cow with Tag No.67430 the liability to pay compensation is denied. There is no deficiency in service. It is true that the numbers of the Ear Tag were interchanged by mistake in the repudiation letter dt. 17.6.10.
On the above pleadings the following issues have beenraised for consideration.
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the
opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for remedy as prayed in
the complaint?
3. Relief and cost.
The evidence consists of oral evidence of PW1, PW2, DW1 and Ext.A1 to A3, Ext.X1 (a) to (e), and Ext.B1 & B2 marked.
Issue Nos. 1 to 3
Admittedly complainant insured his cow with the opposite party for the period from 30.3.2010 to 29.3.2013 for a sum of `25,000 with ear Tag No.67407. The case of the complainant is that the original Ear Tag 67407 had been lost some where while grazing and re-tagging of the cow was done with the number 67430 by the local veterinary doctor and the same was intimated to opposite party through the veterinary doctor. Thereafter the cow happened to be died. The complainant submitted claim petition with all documents but it was repudiated on the ground that such a cow as the number submitted with the opposite party has not been insured with the opposite party. The case of the opposite party is that complainant never intimated the incident of re-tagging. It leads to suspicion about the genuiness of the case of the complainant. It also leads to the suspicion that it is colluded act of the complainant with veterinary surgeon. The opposite party denied the liability since opposite party has not insured the cow with Tag No.67430.
Complainant adduced evidence by way of affidavit in tune with his pleadings. He has stated that the opposite party has insured his cow, which was purchased under the live stock development project of Animal Husbandry Department for the period of 30.3.2010 to 29.3.2013 with tag number 67407. Ext.A1 certificate issued by veterinary surgeon proves that the complainant has purchased pregnant heifer from S.Kalimuthu, Coimbatore under the Live Stock Development project of Animal Husbandry Department. It also shows the ear tag number 67407. Ext.A2 cattle insurance policy proves that the cow has been insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. In cross examination PW2 deposed that the cow was purchased for `40,500 and premium was remitted for the insurance amount `25,000. Affidavit evidence states that the ear tag was lost while the cow was left for graszing and the ear tag was retagged with new number 67430. PW1, the veterinary surgeon adduced evidence that the animal has been ear tagged with new number 67430. Ext.X1 is the case sheet of the cow. Ext.X1 and X1(a)X1(b) proves that complainant purchased the alleged cow and at first the ear tag was 67407 and thereafter new number has been retagged as 67430. PW1 doctor deposed that “]pXnb ear tagsImSp¯ hnh-cT Payyannur United India Insurance Company¡v I¯-b¨v And-bn-¨n-«pv”. Ext.X1(b)_ produced by the witness proves that on 26.4.10 intimation sent to Manger United India Insurance Company Ltd., Payyannur that the ear tag No.67407 of the cow insured (policy No.100303/47/09/01/00000898 dt.30.3.10) has been irrecoverably lost and the animal has been retagged with the new No. 67430. PW1 doctor deposed in answering another question that “ Re-tag sNbvXm km[m-cW endorsementIn«m-dnÔ. He has also deposed that “ Re-tagsNbvX-Xn\p original policy authenticate endorsement Dm-bn-cp-¶n-Ã. Circle sNbvXp {]tX-y-IT Fgp-Xn-bn-«pv”.]m¼v ISn¨v N¯-t¸mÄ ]cm-Xn-¡m-c-s\-k-lm-bn-¡m³ retag ssNbvXp-sh¶p ]d-ªm icn-bÔ.Ext.A2 page 2 shows that No.87407 circled and the new number 67430 written separately. PW2 complainant deposed in cross examination that 30.3.2010 apX-emWv insure sNbvX-Xp. BZ-ys¯ tag number 67407Bbn-cp-¶p. AXp \jvS-s¸-«-t¸mÄ . 26.4.2010\p retagsNbvXp. BbXp I¼-\nsb tcJm-aq-eT And-bn-¨n-«pv. Retag sNbvX tcJ sImSp-¯-t¸mÄ policybn At±-lT mark sNbvXn-cp¶p. DW1 deposed in cross examination that “Doctor hymP tcJ Na-t¨m-sb¶p F\n-¡-dn-bnÃ. DoctorhymP tcJ Na-¨p-sh¶p affidavit ]d-ª-Xp -k-T-i-bn-¡p-¶p-s¶p am{X-amWv Dt±-in-¨Xp”. It means opposite party has no consistent case that the documents produced by doctor are concocted documents. The evidence of veterinary doctor makes it clear that the animal which was tagged at first as 67407 was later re-tagged by him as 67430 since the earlier tag was lost. Ext.X1 (b) intimation letter strengthened the evidence adduced by PW2 doctor and there is no contra evidence to disbelieve the concerned veterinary doctor/PW2. Ext.A1 documents substantiate the case of the complainant.
Ext.B1 & B2 are the documents produced by opposite party. Ext.B1 is certified as certified true copy. DW1 deposed in cross examination that “Fsâ Hm^okv copybpsS certified copybmWv Ext.B1”. The documents produced by opposite party and the oral evidence adduced by DW1 does not hit the genuinity of the evidence placed by PW1, veterinary doctor. Ext.X1 (d) postmortem report reveals that the cow was dead on 9.5.10. Postmortem report contains the description of the cow which had been tallying with Ext.X1 (a) Health cum valuation certificate.
On going through the documents as well as the oral evidence and taking in to consideration the circumstances as such we are of firm opinion that the complainant succeeded in establishing his case and thus the opposite party is liable to pay the insured amount of `25,000 to the complainant. Complainant is also entitled for the cost of litigation a sum of `1000.The issues 1 to 3 are found in favour of the complainant and order passed accordingly.
In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay the claim amount of `25,000( Rupees Twenty five thousand only) together with `1000 (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of this litigation to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite party is liable to pay 12% interest from the date of order till realization of the amount. Complainant is entitled to execute the order after the expiry of one month as per the provisos of consumer protection Act.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1. Copy of the health cum valuation certificate issued by Veterinary
surgeon
A2. Copy of the Cattle insurance policy issued by OP
A3. Copy of the letter dt. 17.6.10 sent by OP
Exhibits for the opposite parties:
B1.Copy of the policy issued to the complainant
B2.Copy of the postal inward register maintained by the OP
Exhibits for the witness
X1.File maintained by the veterinary doctor on account of the
Complainant’s cow
Witness examined for the complainant
PW1. Dr.Sarika.P
PW2. Complainant
Witness examined for the opposite party
DW1.M.V.Venugopal
/forwarded by order/
Senior Superintendent
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
