By Smt.  Bindu.R,  President:

          This complaint is  filed  by  Johny T.M,    S/o.  Mathew against   (1) Branch Manager,  New India Assurance Co.,  Koduvally and  (2)  Kabanigiri  Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana Sangam Ltd.,  alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  According to the Complainant the Complainant is a member of the 2^nd  Opposite Party  society and is a diary farmer and doing the same for his livelihood.  The Complainant states that in October 2016 Complainant purchased  a cow  by paying  Rs.70,000/-  and the cow was insured on 24.11.2016 with the 2^nd  Opposite party.  Dr. Premchand from  Padichira  Veterinary  dispensary tested the cow and Ear  tag No.19737/NIC 572300 was also issued.

          2. Complainant further states that in April 2019,  the cow became ill and died during the treatment on 23.04.2019  (wrongly mentioned in the Complainant as 23.04.2016) and post mortem  was conducted on the very next day ie on 24.04.2019 by Dr. K.S. Premanand, Veterinary Dispensary, Padichira, Pulpally.  The Complainant states that the claim form along with relevant records were sent  to the 1^st  Opposite Party through the 2^nd  Opposite Party, but  the claim was rejected saying that the ear tag could not be identified.  The rejection of the claim was informed by the 1^st  Opposite Party on 31.07.2019.  Even though the Complainant approached the Grievance Redressal Cell,  they confirmed the order  of 1^st  Opposite Party and the order was communicated to the Complainant on 20.09.2019.  The Complainant states that the Complainant  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  ear tag   which is  issued by the

Veterinary Surgeon and  during post mortem,  the Ear tag is indentified by the surgeon  and the cow was identified with the help of the ear tag.    Hence according  to the Complainant the Opposite Party cannot reject the claim and there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the  side of the Opposite Party and the Complaint is filed for (1) getting the insured amount  of Rs.70,000/-  with 12% interest from the date of claim till the realisation and for other reliefs.

          3. Upon notice from the Commission 1^st and 2^nd  Opposite Parties appeared and filed their version.   The 1^st  Opposite Party in their version stated that the cow bearing No.19737  was insured  with 1^st  Opposite Party as per IP No.761304/47/16/04/277 for the period from 24.11.2016  to 23.11.2019.  The sum insured for the cow  was Rs.70,000/-.  The cow belonged to the Complainant died on 23.04.2019  was not identified.  Unless the cow is  identified the 1^st  Opposite Party is unable to satisfy the claim.  It is also stated by the  1^st  Opposite Party that the Veterinary Surgeon could not  identity the insured  cow at the time of post mortem with respect to the ear tag No.19737.  In the certificate dated 06.05.2019  issued  by the Veterinary Surgeon it was stated  that digits upon the ear tag is not legible.  It is stated by 1^st  Opposite Party that since the form accompanied by the ear tag which was not identifiable, the claim was repudiated on 23.07.2019  and hence the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

        4.  2^nd  Opposite Party, in their  version admitted  that the Complainant is a

member of the Society and it is admitted that the cow belonging to the Complainant was insured through  2^nd  Opposite Party.  It is  also admitted by the 2^nd  Opposite Party that the cow belonging to the Complainant  died in April 2019,  and the claim form sent through  2^nd  Opposite Party was repudiated by the  1^st Opposite Party.  Even though the Complainant approached the grievance cell of the 1^st  Opposite Party against the repudiation of the claim,  also became  futile. It is admitted by  2^nd  Opposite Party that on 08.05.2019  all the documents including the ear tag were sent to the 1^st  Opposite Party  but the claim was repudiated on the ground  “no tag no claim”.  Even though  the repudiation of the claim was challenged before  the higher authority of the 1^st  Opposite Party,  they were  confirmed the decision of 1^st  Opposite Party.  It is stated by the 2^nd  Opposite Party that there is no deficiency of service or  unfair trade practice  on the part of the  2^nd  Opposite Party.

          5. PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts. A1 to A5  and MO1 were marked from the side of the Complainant.  From the side of the Opposite Party,  OPW1 was examined  and Exts.B1 to B4 were marked.

           6. On verification of the contents of the complaint and also after making a thorough probe in to the  over all aspects of the case based on records produced from  either side,  the following points  are raised for consideration.

1. Whether the Complainant had sustained to any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Party?
2. If so,  whether the Complainant  is entitled to get any compensation from the  Opposite Party?
3. Costs of  the proceedings if any?

7. It is the case of the Complainant that the cow which was insured with the 

1^st Opposite Party through  the  2^nd  Opposite Party for  Rs.70,000/-   on 24.11.2016 died during April 2019.  According to PW1,  the Complainant, it is not correct to say that the ear tag submitted to the company is not that  removed from the insured  cow.  According to him the  details along with  the ear tag was entrusted to the 2^nd  Opposite Party who transmitted the same to the 1^st  Opposite Party.  During  cross examination,  nothing  was brought  out by the Opposite Party which supports the repudiation of claim by the  1^st  Opposite Party.  Post mortem was conducted by  PW2 who  deposed that the ear tag bearing No.19737/NIC 572300  was there at the time post mortem.  The colour of the cow was black and white and was aged 5 years and 5 months.  It is admitted  by PW2 that the ear tag was intact and the branch code is clear in the ear tag.  According to PW2,  since the identity of the cow is not legible, the number was noted  as per the policy details and according to him the cow belongs to Johny,  Thekkunnnel (H) and   there was only  one cow on the date of visit of PW2.  Ext.A3,  the copy of cattle insurance  policy (Original of which is produced as Ext.B1 by the 1^st Opposite Party)  shows that only one cow is insured in the name of the Complainant with identification tag No.19737.  The Opposite Party has no case that the Complainant is not the owner of the cow who insured the cow with 1^st  Opposite Party.  The 1^st  Opposite Party has no case that the Complainant has  yet another cow which is insured with  1^st  Opposite Party with tag No.19737  and has also no case that the Complainant manipulated the MO or there is forgery on the part of the doctor who conducted the post mortem report  which is marked as Ext.A4.

          8. The 2^nd  Opposite Party in their version admitted that the Complainant is a member of the society and the Complainant  insured the cow through the 2^nd  Opposite Party under the scheme   named Pasumithra and on the death of the cow,  claim form with the records send  to the 1^st  Opposite Party on 08.05.2019  through 2^nd  Opposite Party.  The said claim was rejected by the  1^st  Opposite Party.  As per the letter dated 31.07.2019,   the claim  was seen repudiated on the ground that the number  in the ear tag is not clear.  Even though the Complainant approached the higher authorities of the 1^st  Opposite Party they have also confirmed the decision of the 1^st  Opposite Party.  It is contented by the  2^nd  Opposite Party that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice  on the part of the  2^nd  Opposite Party and they are not liable for any compensation.

          9. Over all consideration of the evidence and the  records,  this Commission finds  that the Complainant had sustained deficiency of service from the side of the  1^st  Opposite Party in repudiating the claim  and hence  point No.1 is found in favour of the Complainant.

          10. Since point No.1 is found in favour of the Complainant the following orders are issued.

1.  The 1^st  Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.70,000/-  (Rupees Seventy thousand only)  to the Complainant within  one month of receipt of the copy of this order.
2. The 1^st  Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs.25,000/-  (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) to the Complainant towards compensation.
3. The 1^st  Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees Five thousand only) to the Complainant towards the cost of the proceedings.

11. Need less to  say   that   the  amount as  directed above  shall  be  paid  to

the Complainant   by   the   1^st  Opposite Party   within  one    month of the date of

receipt of this order otherwise the Complainant shall be entitled for getting 6% interest from the date of order till realisation except for the amount  awarded as costs.

          The complaint is partly allowed.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Commission  on this the 10^th  day of July 2023.

Dated of filing:16.03.2020.                                                     

PRESIDENT        :  Sd/-

MEMBER           :  Sd/-

                                                                    MEMBER           :  Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1.           T.M. Johny                    Complainant.

PW2.          Dr. Preman. K. S,           Senior Veterinary Surgeon.      

Witness for the Opposite Party:

OPW1.        Nandakumar. O.             Senior Divisional Manager.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1.             Copy of Letter.                         dt:31.07.2019.

A2.             Copy o Letter.                          dt:20.09.2019.

A3.             Copy of Cattle Insurance Policy. 

A4.             Copy of Post Mortem Report.  dt:06.05.2019.

A5.             Copy of Claim form.               

MO1.          Ear Tag.     

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:

B1.              Copy of Cattle Insurance Policy.

B2.              Veterinary Certificate.                         dt:06.05.2019.

B3.              Claim Form.                                                dt:06.05.2019.

B4.              Letter.                                                dt:31.07.2019.

                                                                                                PRESIDENT:  Sd/-

                                                                            MEMBER    :   Sd/-

                                                                   MEMBER    :   Sd/-