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 Government of India had sponsored a Livestock Insurance Scheme in Andhra Pradesh according to which all the milch cattle will be under the purview of the scheme.  2^nd opposite party will provide 50 % of the subsidy premium. To this effect there is a memorandum of understanding between 2^nd opposite party and the concerned insurance company. 

The complainant had insured his cattle for an amount of Rs.30,000/- with 1^st opposite party and 1^st opposite party has given Tag No.7930 to the insured cattle.  During the existence of policy the cattle died and the same was informed to opposite parties by the complainant.  But the 1^st opposite party has repudiated the claim on 14-02-11 with remarks;

“on perusal of the underwriting docket of the policy we found that the actual tag of the animal was 53462 but at the time of loss the cited tag No. was found.  We could not find any retagging endorsement in our records.  Further at the time of underwriting you have not submitted the photograph of the animal since the SI of the cattle is more than 20,000/-“

        Aggrieved by the said repudiation complainant got issued a notice dated 23-01-12 to opposite parties to review the repudiation and to pay the sum assured to the complainant.  Though opposite parties received the said notice, there is no response from them till date nor settled the claim.  The reasons for repudiating the claim are not in accordance with the procedure envisaged for settlement of claims as  under clause 10 of MOU.   Thus there is deficiency of service on the part of 1^st opposite party.  Hence the complainant

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

          The complaint is not maintainable either at Law or no facts against this opposite party. This Forum has no jurisdiction as there is no cause of action to raise consumer dispute. The allegations made in 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 insured/veterinary doctor to submit required documents as requested by the insurer.  The liability is out of contract of insurance between insured and insurer.   The veterinary doctor or farmer have not made any intimation or request for retagging prior to the death of animal.  Veterinarian should furnish retagging details to the concerned insurance company for making necessary endorsement.  The veterinary doctor received letter dated 14-02-11 from 1^st opposite party and informed the same to the farmer insured.    Without clarifying the observation mentioned in the said letter, the insured got issued legal notice and filed this complainant.  As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party.  Hence the complainant 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. 

6.     On behalf of the complainant Exs.A-1 to A-7 are marked.  On behalf of opposite parties Exs.B-1 to B-5 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?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled to? 

8.      The case of the complainant is that he insured his cattle with 1^st opposite party and during the existence of the policy the insured cattle 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.     

9.      The case of the 1^st opposite party is that as the tag produced by the complainant was not tallied with the insured cattle, they sought for clarification under letter dated 14-02-11.  But without clarifying the said letter complainant got issued a notice to 1^st opposite party and filed complaint and that therefore there is no deficiency on the part of 1^st opposite party

10.   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.  The 2^nd opposite party is the Government Agency who said to have provided 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 2^nd opposite party is not liable for the claim of the complainant. 

11.    POINT NOs. 2:   The cattle of the complainant was insured with 1^st opposite party for which 2^nd opposite party has provided 50% subsidy premium and the insured cattle, according to complainant was died during the existence of the policy and that he informed the same to opposite parties for settling the claim.  On 14-02-11 1^st opposite party addressed a letter Ex.A-2 to the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon concerned stating that the actual tag of the insured animal was 53462 and there is no endorsement in their records as to whether the cattle was retagged and requested to clarify the points mentioned in Ex.A-2.  According to the allegations of the complainant his cattle was tagged with No.7930 at the time of insurance.  It is not the case of the complainant that the cattle was retagged.  Later complainant got issued notice under Ex.A-3 to the opposite parties requesting to settle the claim.  Even after receipt of the notice, as the 1^st opposite party has not settled the claim, complainant filed this complaint.  Therefore there is cause of action to entertain the complaint and this Forum has got the jurisdiction to entertain the same.  Accordingly this point is answered.           

12.    POINT NO. 1:-   As seen from Ex.B-1 policy the Tag No. for the insured cattle of the complainant was noted as 53462.  But the allegation of the complainant is that Tag No. 7390 was given to his insured cattle by 1^st opposite party.  It is not the case of complainant that the cattle was retagged complainant has not filed endorsement schedule showing that the cattle was retagged.  Further complainant had not obtained any retag endorsement on the policy schedule of his insured cattle.  1^st opposite party addressed a letter dated 14-02-11 under Ex.A-2 (copy of Ex.A-2 was marked as Ex.B-4)  to the V.A.S, V.D. Dachavaram informing that the actual Tag No. of animal was 53462 and they did not find any retagging endorsement in their records and also mentioned that the photograph of the animal was not submitted and requested the Veterinary doctor to clarify the same.  Later the complainant got issued a notice under Ex.A-3 dated            23-01-12 to 1^st opposite party mentioning the contents of Ex.A-2 and stated that 1^st opposite party has not demanded for furnishing the photograph of the cattle which has to be done at the time of under -writing itself and the lapse is on the part of 1^st opposite party and requested to process the claim.  Even in the notice Ex.A-3 the complainant has not clarified as to whether the insured cattle was retagged or not and filed complainant subsequent to issuance of notice under Ex.A-3.  Thus no mention was made by the complainant either in his complaint or in his notice (Ex.A-3) as to whether the cattle was retagged or not.  The tag produced by the complainant for settling the claim, as already mentioned above bears the number 07930 which was not mentioned in the policy Ex.B-1.  Thus the complainant failed to comply clause (d) condition 10 of MOU which is essential for identifying the animal and to settle the claim.  Therefore in view of the facts and circumstances of the case we cannot find any deficiency of service on the part of 1^st opposite party in settling the claim of the complainant.  Accordingly this point is answered. 

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

14.    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