C.C. No. 06 of 2009th April 2009st floor, C.C. No. 06 of 20093 Therefore, the complainant filed this complaint requesting this forum to direct the respondent to pay compensation of Rs. 80,000/- towards insurance amount along with expenses and damage incurred by her due to the trouble caused by the respondent and to grant cost of the complaint and such other relief as this forum deems fit in the interest of justice. 3. The respondent filed a counter denying all the allegations and stated that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of ING Vysya Bank as necessary party in whose favour the insurance policy issued by the respondent and the financier Bank had paid the premium directly to the respondent, not individually or directly to the complainant. If at all there is any grievance in the settlement of the claim it is the Finance Bank that has to file the complaint but not by the complainant directly. The Financier bank is a necessary party to this complaint as there is still outstanding loan dues by the complainant and the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine. The insured product under the said policy is various mitch cows belonging to various beneficiaries and to have the identity of the cows, issued under the policy, a tag with Sl.No. which will be impressed to the ear of the cow and in the said process, the complainant’s c o w was allotted tag No. 1995, which i s also mentioned in the insurance policy. As per conditions incorporated in the insurance policy “Tag should be surrendered at the time of claim, otherwise it will be treated as no claim”. In the event of death of animal claim shall not be entertained unless the ear tag, it is surrendered to the company. In the event of loss of ear tag. It is the responsibility of the insured to give immediate notice to the company and get the animal re-tagged. As per conditions, the complainant has not surrendered the ear tag No. 1995 to the respondent, on that the respondent has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. The complainant never approached the respondent at any point of time and that there is no need for the Manager to challenge the complainant as alleged. The animal bearing tag No. 1995 was insured for a value of Rs. 25,000/- under the C.C. No. 06 of 20094 said policy and the respondent is not concern with all the heads that the complainant claimed in the complaint. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the respondent in not settling the claim of the complainant. The death of the animal took place on 19-8-2008 and the respondent repudiated the claim on 29-10-2008 and that the respondent has not taken much time for intimation. The respondent requested this forum to dismiss the complaint with costs in the interest of justice. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination. i. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for? ii. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A9 were marked. Oral arguments were heard both sides. 6. Point No. 1 Ex. A1 is the Xerox copy of insurance policy No. 61120/47/07/01/00000340. Ex. A2 is the Xerox copy of proceedings of the Dist. Collector, dt. 27-6-2008. Ex. A3 is the Xerox copy of statement showing the list of beneficiaries. Ex. A4 is the Xerox copy of list of beneficiaries identified in Gramasaba for Chief Minister’s Pasukranti patakam. Ex. A5 is the Xerox copy of letter dt. 25-9-2008 of Sarpanch, Upparapalli addressed to the respondent. Ex. A6 is the Xerox copy of letter dt. 29-10-2008 issued by the respondent in favour of the complainant. Ex. A7 is the Xerox copy of description of animal issued by Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Buddayapalli and Ex. A8 is the Xerox copy of letter of veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Buddayapalli addressed to the respondent. Ex. A9 is the Xerox copy of letter from Branch Head, ING Vysya Bank addressed to the respondent, dt. 10-10-2008. C.C. No. 06 of 20095 7. As could be seen from the documentary evidence on record it is a fact that the complainant purchased the animal in question for Rs. 35,000/- on a loan of Rs. 20,000/- granted by the District Collector under Chief Minister’s pasukranti scheme and Rs. 15,000/- as subsidy from the SC Corporation, Kadapa. This animal along with the animals of other beneficiaries were insured the said animals of the complainant for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- vide Ex. A1 which has identification No. 1995. The only point which is vital in this case is solitary condition exists in Ex. A1 that the Tag should be surrendered at the time of claim, otherwise it will be treated as no claim. The complainant failed to produce the Tag No. 1995 of her animal along with her claim to the complainant and she failed to substantiate the reason for not producing the ear tag of the animal before the respondent for settlement of the claim. As per Ex. A8 the Veterinary Asst. Surgeon stated that the animal died on 19-8-2008 at 11.00 a.m and he conducted the post mortem of the animal and autopsy findings are recorded. So he requested the respondent to consider the claim in favour of the complainant and further mentioned that the tag is not available. In this letter the said doctor has not mentioned the tag No. and neither this doctor nor the complainant produced the post mortem certificate and autopsy findings recorded by the doctor before this forum. Ex. A7 is the printed proforma issued by the respondent company which is called Veterinary certificate and the Veterinary Asst. Surgeon, filled up all the columns with his own hands even he mentioned the tag No. of the animal though it was not available at the time of conducting autopsy. Ex. A7 is not the post mortem certificate but it is a proforma supplied by the respondent company which is filled up by Veterinary doctor, who alleged to have conducted autopsy on the dead body of the animal in question. At any point of time she has not convinced this forum in support of her complaint and there are no merits in the complaint. The complainant also failed to add the name of the Financier which is necessary party and the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party in this C.C. No. 06 of 20096 case. In view of the above circumstances the complainant deserves no consideration in her favour. 8. Point No. 2 In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs. Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 30 MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses examined. For Complainant : NIL For Respondent : NIL Exhibits marked for Complainant : - Ex. A1 X/c of insurance policy No. 61120/47/07/01/00000340. Ex. A2 X/c of proceedings of the Dist. Collector, dt. 27-6-2008. Ex. A3 X/c of statement showing the list of beneficiaries. Ex. A4 X/c of list of beneficiaries identified in Gramasaba for Chief Minister’s Pasukranti patakam. Ex. A5 X/c of letter dt. 25-9-2008 of Sarpanch, Upparapalli addressed to the respondent. Ex. A6 X/c of letter dt. 29-10-2008 issued by the respondent in favour of the complainant. Ex. A7 X/c of description of animal issued by Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Buddayapalli Ex. A8 X/c of letter of veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Buddayapalli addressed to the respondent. Ex. A9 X/c of letter from Branch Head, ING Vysya Bank addressed to the respondent, dt. 10-10-2008. Exhibits marked for Respondents: - ---NIL--- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Copy to :- 1) Sri J. Pullaiah, Advocate. 2) Sri D.V.S. Prasad, Advocate. 1) Copy was made ready on : 2) Copy was dispatched on : 3) Copy of delivered to parties : B.V.P. - - - C.C. No. 06 of 2009th April 2009 DISTRICT FORUM :: KADAPA PRESENT SRI P.V. NAGESWARA RAO, M.A., LL.M., PRESIDENT SMT. B. DURGA KUMARI, B.A., B.L., SRI S. ABDUL KHADER BASHA, B.Sc., MEMBER Thursday, 30 CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 06 / 2009 Settipalli Chennamma, W/o S. Raghuramudu, Hindu, Milch Business, aged about 25 years, Residing at S.C. colony, Bojjavaripalli Village, Proddatur Mandal, Kadapa distrct. ….. Complainant. Vs. The Branch Managar, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office – 511204, D.no. 8/83, 1 Gandhi road, Proddatur – 516 361. ….. Respondent. This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 29-4-2009 in the presence of Sri J. Pullaiah, Advocate for complainant and Sri D.V.S. Prasad, Advocate for respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:- O R D E R (Per Sri S. Abdul Khader Basha, Member), 1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. 2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The complainant being a Milk vender purchased the Milk produced animal for Rs. 35,000/- on 13-3-2008 at Tamilnadu state and spent Rs. 3,000/- towards transport charges. She applied for Chief Minister’s Pasukranthi Pathakam and the District Collector, Kadapa sanctioned Rs. 20,000/- through ING Vysya Bank for purchasing the said animal. The SC Corporation, Kadapa granted a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards subsidy amount. The complainant and other villagers insured the said animal under the policy of the respondent company through ING Vysya Bank vise unit No. 1611204 and policy No. 61120/47/07/01/00000340 with identification No. 1995 for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- validity period from 25-3-2008 to 24-3-2011. The complainant spent Rs. 5,000/- towards purchase of Dana to the Animal and the said animal was giving 8 liters Milk per day. The complainant was selling the Milk @ Rs. 20/- per liter. On 19-8-2008 2 suddenly the said animal fell down on the ground. By seeing the same by husband of the complainant met Dr. Somasekhar, Animal Husbandry, Proddatur, who visited the house of the complainant and examined the animal and found the animal dead. The complainant informed the same to the Sarpanch of Bojjavaripalli and to the respondent and on the same day panchanama was conducted by the respondent company subordinates at that time the complainant came to know that the deceased animal has lost its tag and they measured the body of the deceased animal and found the measurements are correct. The complainant approached the respondent several times and requested for grant of insurance amount but the respondent postponing the matter day by day for that the complainant spent a lot of money towards her bus fares and her expenses and several demands made by the complainant. The respondent issued a letter dt. 29-10-2008 stating that the tag has not been submitted, as per conditions of the policy “No tag - No claim” hence, repudiated. The respondent intentionally not granted insurance policy amount with malifide intention to evade the insurance policy amount to the complainant and gave false reply notice and harassed the complainant financially as well as mentally. During hot hot arguments between the complainant and Manager of the insurance company, the Manager challenged the complainant that he will n o t pay the insurance amount towards deceased animal. The complainant insured her milch produced animal by purchasing insurance policy from the respondent company and the same is in force. But the respondent did not pay the insurance amount because of his negligence. The complainant suffered a lot and sustained a loss of Rs. 80,000/- due to the negligence of the respondent. The complainant furnished the claim particulars as follows. Cost of the Milch Produce anile Rs. 35,000/- Transport charges Rs. 3,000/- Loss of Milk from 19-8-2008 to 26-11-2008 total 99 days per day 8 liters 99X8=792 liters 792 X 20 = 15,840/- Rs. 15,840/- Expenses for approaching the respondent Rs. 3,160/- Office damages Rs. 18,000/- Total Rs. 80,000/- 1
......................B. Durga Kumari
......................Sri P.V. Nageswara Rao
......................Sri.S.A.Khader Basha | | 
