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 assured sum of Rs.30,000/- , to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and other reliefs.   

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

The central Government had sponsored a Livestock Insurance Scheme in Andhra Pradesh. As per the said scheme the animal will be insured for its current market price.  The animal insured will have to be properly and uniquely identified at the time of the insurance claim.  The ear tag should therefore be full proof as far as possible.  2^nd opposite party is the implementing agency of the scheme.  2^nd opposite party will keep upto 50% of expected premium amount of the number of animals expected to be insured for 3 months as an advance with the insurance company for immediate adjustment of 50% subsidy premium.  The insurance company cover commences after receipt of proposal cum veterinary certificate from the Authorized veterinary practitioner along with health and valuation certificate and 50% of the premium amount + service tax from the beneficiary.  2^nd opposite party bears the subsidy premium.  To this effect there is a memorandum of understanding between 2^nd opposite party and concern insurance company. 

        The complainant had insured her cattle for an amount of Rs.30,000/- with 1^st opposite party, the tag Number given by the 1^st opposite party was 02722.  The insured cattle was retagged with No.06445 with endorsement dated 26-03-2010.  Certificate of policy of insurance was issued to the complainant for the period from 30-03-10 to 15-03-2012.  During the period of policy the buffaloe died on            04-03-11.  The same was informed to the opposite parties by the complainant.  But 1^st opposite party repudiated the claim 04-08-11 with remarks “ As per investigation report of the investigator no hole was found to the right though as per photographs the retagging was taken place to right ear only incldg the latest one on 26-03-10. Besides the insured has confirmed that no tag was tagged to the dead cattle right ear so far.  Moreso insured confirmed that the last retagging was taken place 5 months back viz., may be in November, 2010 whereas the retagging letter was given to us on 26-03-2010.  We are unable to understand the cited different versions and hence unable to proceed further in the matter of processing the claim.”   Aggrieved by the said repudiation, the complainant got issued a notice dated 21-11-11 to review the repudiation and to pay the sum assured to the complainant.  Though the opposite parties received the notices on 22-11-11 and 23-11-11 respectively there is no response from them till date.  The reasons for repudiating the claim are not in accordance with the procedure envisaged for settlement of claims as under clause 10 of the MOU.  Hence the reasons for repudiation of claim was not genuine.  Therefore there is a deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party.  Hence the complainant.      

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 no facts.  The allegations of the complaint are denied and the complainant is put strict proof for the same.  This Forum has no jurisdiction as there is no cause of action to raise consumer dispute. The liability of this opposite party is subject to the terms and conditions of MOU.  As per MOU conditions it is the duty of the insured/veterinary doctor to submit required documents as requested by the insurer. The liability is out of contract of insurance between the insured and the insurer.  The opposite party while processing the claim found some discrepancies from the claim forms submitted by complainant along with photos and the version of farmer regarding the initial tagging and retagging and death animal photos.  The opposite party sought the following clarifications from the veterinary doctor through letter dated 04-08-11 i.e.

1. Policy period is 16-03-09 to 15-03-12 and Tag No.53399 was given at the first instance.  Photo of the animal was not submitted.  (filed as Ex.B-1)
2. Through endorsement number 5052010 – retagging was done with Tag No.2722-photo of animal submitted which shows duly tagged to right ear of the animal ( Ex.B-2 with photo).
3. Again obtained another endorsement 1868-01- retagged with tag no.6445 – photo of animal submitted duly tagged to right ear ( filed as Ex.B-3 with photo)
4. As per photos of dead animal ear tagging done with left ear.  Tag No.6445 ( filed as Ex.B-4 – photo of dead animal) 
5. The insured farmer gave letter dated 04-03-11 to this opposite party (Ex.B-5).  In his letter it is specifically mentioned that no ear tag was done to right ear of the dead animal and tagged to the left ear only. 

From the above it is observed that tagging was done to the right ear as per policy endorsement but dead animal had a tag to the left ear.  As per the insured version also in his letter dated 04-03-11, no tag was done to the right ear.  In those circumstances 1^st opposite party sought clarification from the veterinary doctor, except that there is no question of repudiation of the claim.  There is no repudiation of the claim as alleged by the complainant and the claim was kept pending for want of clarifications.  At this stage the complainant got issued notice and filed the complaint.  There is no deficiency in 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 noway 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. 

6.     On behalf of the complainant Exs.A-1 to A-7 are marked.  On behalf of opposite parties Exs.B-1 to B-8 are marked. 

7.      Now the points that arise for consideration is

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? 

The case of the complainant is that as per the cattle insurance scheme sponsored by the Government, she insured her cattle with 1^st opposite party for an amount of Rs.30,000/-, but at the time insurance 1^st opposite party has given tag No.02722 at the first instance and retagged the insured cattle with No.06445 and that during the existence of the policy the cattle died on 04-03-11 and that she informed the same to the opposite parties, but 1^st opposite party repudiated the claim on 04-08-11, that as the repudiation is not in accordance with the procedure envisaged under clause 10 of MOU, she got issued notice to the opposite parties to reconsider her claim, but there is no reply from the opposite parties  and that therefore there is deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party.

8.     The case of 1^st opposite party is that at the time of insurance of the cattle of complainant they took photographs of the cattle after tagging the animal at the first instance and they also got the photograph of the animal at the time of retagging the insured animal, that the tag at the first instance and the retagging was done to the right ear of the cattle as per the photographs, but as seen from the photograph of the dead animal the tag appears to have done to the left ear of dead animal and that there is discrepancy regarding the tag fixed to the ear of the cattle and that therefore they sought for the clarification from the veterinary doctor and in the meanwhile complainant got issued notice and filed this complaint and that there is no deficiency of service on their part. 

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 insure the cattle of the complainant. 

10. POINT NO. 2:-  The cattle of the complainant was insured with 1^st opposite party for which 2^nd opposite party has provided 50% of the subsidy premium.  The insured cattle was died on 04-03-11 during the existence of the policy.  The complainant informed the same to opposite parties in order to settle her claim.  1^st opposite party addressed a letter under Ex.A-3 to the concerned Veterinary Assistant Surgeon stating that they are unable to understand the different versions and unable to proceed further in the matter of processing the claim.  Subsequently complainant got issued notice under Ex.A-5 to opposite parties and filed this complaint.  Hence there is cause of action for entertaining the complaint.  Therefore this Forum has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  Accordingly this point is  answered.     

11.    POINT NO.1      It is not in dispute that the cattle of the complainant was insured with 1^st opposite party.  According to the complainant the insured cattle was tagged with No.2722 and retagged with No.6445 and the said tag was fixed to the left ear of the insured cattle. In support of her claim she filed Exs.B-5 and B-6 photographs of the dead animal.  The main dispute of the 1^st opposite party is that the insured cattle was tagged to the right ear and in support of their contention 1^st opposite party filed Exs. B-3 & B-4 photographs wherein the tag was fixed to the cattle to the right ear, stating that the said photographs are taken at the time of tagging the insured buffaloe.  Basing on the said photograph the investigator of 1^st opposite party has given his report that no hole was found to the right ear and retagging was taken place to the right ear of the insured cattle.  The said photographs (Exs.B-3 & B-4) are said to have taken at the time of tagging on different occasions i.e., Ex.B-3 was taken while tagging with No.2722 whereas Ex.B-4 was taken at the time of retagging with 6445, the said tag Nos. are noted on the reverse of Exs.B-3 & B-4 respectively.  The burden to prove that the said photographs ( Exs.B-3 & B-4) have taken at the time of tagging the cattle in question is on the part of 1^st opposite party.  No signature of the complainant or veterinary doctor was obtained on the reverse of the said photographs to establish that they are actually taken at the time of tagging the cattle. Further as observed from Exs.B-3 & B-4 which were taken at different times shows that the man holding the cattle was wearing the same dress even though the said photos are said to have been taken on different dates.  Thus the bonafidies of the said photographs Exs.B-3 and B-4 are doubtful and 1^st opposite party failed to establish the nexus of the photographs with the insured cattle, since they do not contain the signature of the complainant or the veterinary doctor.  Further as seen from Ex.B-2 certificate issued by the veterinary doctor and endorsement given by the 1^st opposite party company the ear to which the tag was fixed to the insured cattle was not mentioned.  The procedure for settlement of claims was given in para10 of MOU Ex.A-2.  It is not the case of the 1^st opposite party that the complainant has not complied the conditions mentioned in para 10 of MOU.  Therefore basing on the report of the investigator which was based on the photographs the processing of the claim of the complainant cannot be stopped as envisaged in Ex.A-3 letter of 1^st opposite party.  Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, we of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of 1^st opposite party in settling the claim of the complainant.  

12.    As seen from the version of the complainant 2^nd opposite party is only a Government Agency which provided 50% subsidy in payment of the premium.  According to the allegations of the complainant 2^nd opposite party has subscribed 50% of subsidy premium.  But 2^nd opposite party in its version stated that it is noway concerned with the Pasukranthi scheme of cattle insurance and it is the Joint Director of Animal Husbandry Department of Andhra Pradesh is the competent authority under whose supervision and control the scheme will be implemented and that they have not insured the cattle of the complainant.  The Department which contributed the 50% of subsidy premium as per the scheme can only be called as co-insured and there will be no liability for the said Department.  Therefore it can be safely concluded that there is no liability on the part of 2^nd opposite party. 

13.   In view of the foregoing discussion and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that 1^st opposite party is liable to pay insured amount together with interest and compensation to the complainant.  Accordingly this point is answered. 

14.    POINT NO. 3:-    Complainant claimed Rs.30,000/- towards insured amount and Rs.20,000/- towards compensation.  The compensation claimed by the complainant is too high and imaginary and it is not substantiated by any evidence.  Therefore, we feel that awarding insured amount of Rs.30,000/- together with interest @ 9% thereon from the date of Ex.A-3 dated 04-08-11 till realization and awarding Rs.2,000/- towards compensation and costs of Rs.1,000/- would meet the ends justice.  Accordingly this point is answered. 

15.    In the result, the complaint is allowed in part as indicated below:

        1.  1^st opposite party is hereby directed to pay the assured sum

              of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant together with interest

              thereon @ 9 % p.a. from 04-08-11 to till realization. 

        2.  1^st opposite party is further directed to pay an amount of

             Rs.2,000/- towards compensation to the complainant.

        3.  1^st opposite party is further directed to pay an amount of

             Rs.1,000/- to the complainant towards costs of the complaint. 

        4.  The complaint against 2^nd opposite party is dismissed.

        5. The above order shall be complied within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which the amounts awarded in item 2 above also will carry interest @ 9% p.a. till realization. 

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/-XXX

PRESIDENT