BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 425/2003 Filed on 22.10.2003

Dated : 16.02.2009

Complainant:

Rajan, S/o Sreedharan, Thadatharikathu Veedu, Mottakkavu, Chullimanoor, Panavoor, Nedumangadu.

(By adv. Vellaikkadavu G. Muraleedharan)

Opposite party:

Senior Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office-III Floor, CWC Building, L.M.S.Compound, Palayam, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. M. Nizamudeen)

This O.P having been heard on 15.01.2009, the Forum on 16.02.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

Brief facts of the case are as follows: The complainant in this case is a livestock farmer. He had insured his Bovine CBHF cow with the opposite party, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 01.06.2000 for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- under policy No. 100400/47/00/12502. The cow had insurance coverage from 07.06.2000 to 06.06.2003. But unfortunately the insured cow died on 05.08.2002. Thereafter as per the insurance coverage the complainant approached the opposite party. But the opposite party repudiated the claim on 31.01.2003 on the ground that the complainant has not produced the photographs and treatment report of the said cow. Hence this complaint.

The opposite party filed version and additional version contending the claim of the complainant. The opposite party submitted that the complainant had violated the policy conditions in not giving immediate notice or intimation regarding the alleged death of the cow. The complainant committed inordinate delay in intimating the death of the cow to the opposite party and thereby the opposite party had lost the opportunity to inspect the carcass of the cow and to take photographs and to conduct postmortem examination by the doctors in the panel of the opposite party to find out the real cause of death and to ascertain whether the cow that allegedly died was the insured or not. The opposite party further submitted that the investigator reported that the complainant was having three cows and only one cow was insured and the cow for which the claim had been lodged was purchased by the complainant about one year back, but the policy was taken for the insured cow two years back. They further submitted that the claim lodged by the complainant was not genuine, the cow which allegedly died was not insured by the opposite party. Hence the repudiation made by the opposite party is valid, reasonable and justifiable.

The complainant and opposite party filed proof affidavits. The complainant has been examined as PW1, the opposite party cross examined him. From the complainant's side 7 documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P7. From the side of opposite party 4 documents were marked as Exts. D1 to D4.

Points to be ascertained:

1. Whether there is any valid insurance to the dead cow?

2. Whether there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite party?

3. Reliefs and costs.

Point (i):- In this case the complainant had taken insurance policy on 01.06.2000 for his Bovine CBHF cow, the insurance coverage was from 07.06.2000 to 06.06.2003. Insurance policy copy was marked as Ext. P6. The cow died on 05.08.2002. Ext. P5 is the postmortem report and Ext. P7 is the death certificate. Both the parties have admitted these facts. In this case the opposite party argued that the complainant has not taken policy to the dead cow. The complainant had three cows. He had taken policy for one cow. The main argument of the opposite party is that the complainant insured the cow on 01.06.2000. But the cow in dispute was purchased after taking the policy. The document marked as Ext. D2 is the claim form submitted by the complainant before the opposite party's office on 12.08.2002. We can see that in this document the complainant had written that the date of purchase of the cow is June 2002, i.e; after one year of taking policy. And also the complainant himself admitted in his deposition at the time of cross examination that മരിച്ചുവെന്ന് പറയുന്ന പശുവിനെ മരിക്കുന്നതിന് ഒരുവര്‍ഷം മുന്‍പാണ് വാങ്ങിയത്. 2001 എട്ടാം മാസം അടുപ്പിച്ചാണ് വാങ്ങിയത്. Insurance എടുത്തത് 2000 ത്തിലാണ്. The complainant had taken insurance policy on 01.06.2000, Ext. D1 is the policy certificate. And also the opposite party argued that as per policy conditions the claimant should give immediate intimation about the illness/death etc. of the animal to the insurer. In this case the complainant intimated the matter only on 12.08.2002. The complainant has no document to show that he had informed the matter to the opposite party immediately. For that reason the opposite party deputed investigator to investigate the matter and the investigation report was marked as Ext. D3. In this case the complainant's insured cow had an ear tag No. 27100. The only proof of the complainant in this case is that the cow which died had the same ear tag No., it has been in the postmortem report. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the ear tag can be removed. When the complainant himself admits that the cow in dispute has purchased in 2001, wherein the policy is seen taken as early in 2000, we find thrust in the argument put forward by the opposite party regarding the removal of ear tag and fixing it on the dead cow. From the above discussions, we have concluded that the cow which died on 05.08.2003 was not insured with the opposite party, the insurer.

Points (ii) & (iii):- But in this case the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that he has not produced the photographs and treatment records of the cow in dispute. Hence we have found that there is deficiency in service and negligence from the side of opposite party. If the opposite party had made the verifications promptly and informed in time the matter to the complainant that the cow which was insured is not the cow which was dead, the complainant would not have been dragged into this litigation. The complainant is not entitled for any benefit of the policy, but as far as delay in finalization of the claim is concerned, the opposite party is liable to pay compensation for the mental agony as it could not dispose the matter within the reasonable time. Hence we find that there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite party. Hence the opposite party shall compensate the complainant.

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 16^th February 2009.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - S. Rajan

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Original postal receipt dated 26.02.2003.

P2 - Postal acknowledgement card.

P3 - Copy of letter dated 31.01.2003 issued by the opposite party.

P4 - Copy of advocate notice dated 25.02.2003.

P5 - Copy of livestock claim and veterinary certificate dated

12.08.2002.

P6 - Copy of certificate of insurance issued by veterinary surgeon.

P7 - Copy of cattle death certificate dated 05.08.2002 issued by

Veterinary Surgeon, Attukal.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Original certificate of insurance issued by veterinary surgeon.

D2 - Original cattle claim form dated 12.08.2002.

D3 - Investigation report on the death claim for the cow insured by the complainant dated 01.01.2003.

D4 - Carbon copy of letter dated 31.01.2003.

PRESIDENT