Per Sri M.V.L.Radha Krishna Murthy, Member:

This complaint is filed u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, praying to direct the opposite parties to pay the assured sum of RS.30,000/- and to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation. 

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

The Central Government of India had sponsored a Livestock Insurance Scheme in Andhra Pradesh according to which all the milch cattle and buffaloes will be under the purview of the scheme.  The animal will be insured for its current market price.  The insured animal has to be properly and uniquely identified at the time of insurance claim.  The year tag should therefore be full proof as far as possible.  After approval by 2^nd opposite party ear tag will be provided at the time of policy by Authorized veterinarian with the assistance of insurance agent.  2^nd opposite party is the implementing agency of the scheme in Andhra Pradesh who will keep up to 50% of expected premium amount of number animals expected to be insured for 3 months as an advance with the insurance company for immediate adjustment of 50 % subsidy premium.   The insurance will cover on receipt of proposal cum veterinary certificate from concerned veterinary practitioner along with health and valuation certificate and 50% of premium amount and service tax from the beneficiary. 

Complainant had insured her cattle for an amount of Rs.30,000/- with the 1^st opposite party who has given tag No.2664 with policy.  During currency of policy the buffaloe died on 24-05-10.  The same was informed to the opposite parties by the complainant.  But 1^st opposite party has repudiated the claim on 28-07-10 with remarks   

 “we acknowledge receipt of completed claim form without tag in respect of the above claim, while scrutinizing the papers we found that the tag not submitted you due to tag was lost while treatment and also survey report reveals that the tag was already exhausted prior to death.  We are treating the above claim as NO CLAIM due to non submission of tag “

The repudiation was addressed to the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon for informing the same to the complainant.  The authorized veterinary assistant surgeon has issued reply to 1^st opposite party stating that she can certify the identification of the insured cattle and has no second though to settle the claim.  The veterinary Assistant surgeon also stated that as per the MOU the identification of the animal can be satisfied through live photo and hence authorized veterinary assistant surgeon has certified and identified the insured animal.  Even then 1^st opposite party did not process the claim.  Aggrieved by the repudiation, complainant got issued a notice dated 21-11-11 to opposite parties to review the repudiation and pay the sum assured to the complainant.  Though the opposite parties received the said notice there is no response from them.  Thus there is deficiency of service on the part of 1^st opposite party.  Hence the complaint.      

3.      The 1^st opposite party company filed its version which in brief is as follows : 

          The complaint is not maintainable either at Law or on facts against this opposite party. This Forum has no jurisdiction as there is no cause of action to raise consumer dispute.  The allegations of the  complainant are denied and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  The liability of this opposite party is subject to the terms and conditions of MOU. As per MOU it is the duty of the owner to submit required documents as requested by the insurer.  The liability is out of contract of insurance between the insured and the insurer.  As per clause 6 of MOU maintenance of ear tag, intimation in case of loss of ear tag to the concerned insurance company and retagging responsibility lies with the farmer.  Veterinarian should furnish retagging details to the concerned insurer for making necessary endorsement in the policy.  As per clause 10 (d) of MOU ear tag applied to the animal should be surrendered.  No claim will be applied if the tag is not surrendered.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of 1^st opposite party.  Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.    

4.      2^nd opposite party filed its version which in brief is as follows : 

Complainant insured his cattle under Pasukranthi Scheme for which the Joint Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Andhra Pradesh is the competent authority, under whose supervision and control the scheme will be implemented.  This opposite party is no way concerned with the insurance of the animals under Pasukranthi Scheme and did not insure the cattle of the complainant.  Hence the complaint may be dismissed against this opposite party.   

5.      Complainant and opposite parties filed their respective affidavits in support of their versions, reiterating the same. 

5.     On behalf of the complainant Exs.A-1 to A-8 are marked.  On behalf of opposite parties Exs.B-1 to B-5 are marked. 

6.      Now the points that arise for consideration are

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether there is cause of action and this Forum has got Jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

1. To what relief the complainant is entitled to? 

7.       The case of the complainant is that she insured her cattle with 1^st opposite party and during the existence of the policy the insured cattle was died and the same was informed to the opposite parties and made a claim for the insured amount, but 1^st opposite party has not settled the claim of the complainant inspite of issuance of notice and that there is deficiency of service on the part of 1^st opposite party.     

8.     The case of the 1^st opposite party is that complainant has not produced the tag of the dead animal and they have repudiated the claim treating it as no claim and informed the same to the concerned Veterinary Assistant Surgeon to inform the same to the insured and thereupon the concerned Veterinary Assistant Surgeon addressed a letter to 1^st opposite party stating that she can identify the animal and requested 1^st opposite party to settle the claim, but the 1^st opposite party has not considered the same, subsequently complainant got issued notice and filed this complaint.   

9.     The case of 2^nd opposite party is that 2^nd opposite party is not concerned with the cattle insurance scheme and they did not insured the cattle of the complainant.  The 2^nd opposite party is the Government Agency who paid 50% subsidy premium to the 1^st opposite party as per memorandum of understanding between 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties for giving policy to the complainant.  Therefore 2^nd opposite party is co-insured and the 2^nd opposite party is not liable for the claim of the complainant. 

10.    POINT NOs. 2:  The version of the 1^st opposite party is that as there is no cause of action this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  The complainant had insured her cattle with 1^st opposite party and it was repudiated by 1^st opposite party treating the claim as no claim under Ex.A-3 and informed the same to Veterinary Assistant Surgeon who in turn to informed the same to the complainant. Therefore there is cause of action to entertain the complaint.  Hence this Forum has got the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  Accordingly this point is answered. 

11.    POINT NO. 1:-   2^nd opposite party is the Government agency who has provided 50% subsidy premium for insuring the cattle of the complainant as per the Pasukranthi Scheme sponsored by Government of India which was implemented in Andhra Pradesh. There is memorandum of understanding between 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties.  As per clause 6 of memorandum of understanding the animal insured will have to be properly and uniquely identified at the time of insurance claim and the ear tag should therefore be full proof as far as possible.  The maintenance of ear tag, intimation in case of loss of ear tag to the concerned insurance company and retagging responsibility lies with the farmer.  The procedure for settlement of claims was envisaged in clause 10 of the MOU.  As per clause 10 (d) ear tag applied to the animal should be surrendered and no claim will be applied if the tag is not surrendered.  Here, in this case the complainant has not surrendered the tag to 1^st opposite party for settling the claim.  It is also not the case of the complainant that they have surrendered the tag of the animal for settling the claim.  As the tag was not surrendered to the insurer 1^st opposite party, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by 1^st opposite party treating it as no claim under Ex.A-3 and informed the same to the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon who informed the same to the complainant.  Subsequent to the repudiation of the claim, the concerned the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon addressed a letter dated 04-10-10 (Ex.A-8) to 1^st opposite party wherein she requested 1^st opposite party to settle the claim of the complainant.  But 1^st opposite party has not considered the request of the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon.  Hence complainant got issued a notice to opposite parties under Ex.A-5 and filed this complaint.  The 1^st opposite party has repudiated the claim as per clause 10 (d) of MOU.  Simply because the veterinary Assistant Surgeon has requested 1^st opposite party to settle the claim in Ex.A-8 letter, it cannot be considered against the terms of MOU.  Therefore, we cannot find any deficiency of service on the part of 1^st opposite party in repudiating the claim of the complainant. Therefore, 1^st opposite party is not liable for the claim of the complainant.  Accordingly this point is answered.   

12.    POINT NO. 3:-  In view of the foregoing discussion on point No.1, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

13.    In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  But in the circumstances of the case each party shall bear their own costs. 

Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 15^th day of November, 2012.

     Sd/-XXX                                 Sd/-XXX                            Sd/-XXX

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                          PRESIDENT APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant  :

For Opposite Parties  :

Sd/-XXXX

PRESIDENT