IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 30th day of January, 2016
Filed on 15.01.2015
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.21/2015
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Smt. Nirmala P.K. The Divisional Manager
Kunjunni parambu United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Cherthala South Divisional Office
Arthunkal P.O. Sarada Shopping Complex
Pin – 688 530 Mullackal, Alappuzha P.O.
Pin – 688 011
(By Adv. R. Hemalatha)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant’s goat was insured with the opposite party under the policy No.101500/47/13/ 41000000011 for Rs.3,000/-. During the policy period the goat died. Complainant applied with all documents to the opposite party on 2.5.2013. But she has not received the insurance amount so far. Hence the complaint is filed for getting the insurance amount of Rs.3000/- along with compensation.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows:-
The opposite party had issued a Sheep & Goat Insurance Policy to Veterinary Surgeon, Arthunkal, Alappuzha District under Goat Insurance Scheme on 17.4.2013 for the period from 17.4.2013 to 16.4.2014 under Policy No.101500/47/13/41/00000006 covering Goat bearing Tag No.60491 of Goat aged 5 months old Black in colour for Rs.3,000/-. The complainant has to prove that the alleged goat is under coverage of said policy under Tag No.60491. The policy No. mentioned in the petition is different one and due to non-mentioning of the Tag No. in the complaint alleged goat is not covered under this policy. The Veterinary Surgeon’s report regarding the death of the goat is not produced and even the date of death is nowhere stated in the complaint. Since the complainant had violated the policy condition, the complainant is not eligible for getting insurance claim.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1. One witness was examined as PW2. The documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A3. The opposite party examined as RW1 and document produced marked as Ext B1.
4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party?
- If so the reliefs and costs?
5. According to the complainant, she insured his got with the opposite party. After the death of the goat she approached the opposite party to get the insured amount. Even after repeated requests were made they did not give the insured amount. According to the opposite party they had issued a Sheep and Goat Insurance Policy to the Veterinary Surgeon, Arthunkal, Alappuzha under Goat Insurance Scheme on 17.4.2013 for the period from 17.4.2013 to 16.4.2014. The main contention of the opposite party is that the complainant has to prove that the alleged goat is under the coverage of the said policy ad under the Tag No. 60491. They also stated that the policy No. stated in the complaint is different one. According to the complainant she had submitted all the required documents on 2.5.2013 to the opposite party. The copy of the document produced as Ext.A1 is the claim form submitted by the complainant with the opposite party. The said document is sealed by the opposite party. On verifying the said document it is seen that the policy No. stated therein is different from the policy No. admitted by the opposite party. At the same the Tag No. of the goat is the same. The opposite party admitted that they had issued a policy covering goat bearing Tag No.60491 aged 5 months old black in colour for Rs.3000/-. While cross examining the PW1, she categorically stated before the Forum that after the death of the goat she entrusted the Tag with the opposite party. The PW2 Veterinary Surgeon also stated before the Forum that that she herself signed in Ext.A2 Veterinary certificate. While cross examining the PW2 to the question put by the learned counsel of the opposite party, “Ext.A1, A3 report-” She answered that, “office time office-delayparty” Ext.A2 was issued on 29.4.2013. Ext.A1 shows that the complainant submitted the claim form on 2.5.2013. On an evaluation of the oral testimony of PW1 and PW2 along with documents Exts.A1 and A2 would prove the case of the complainant. Even though, the policy No. stated in the claim is incorrect, but the Tag No. stated is correct. The opposite party has no case that they have not issued a policy for the goat bearing Tag No.60491. The opposite party also has no case that there is another policy inexistence as stated in the claim for different from the original policy issued in favour of the complainant. Hence the difference in number is only an error in writing the number in the claim form. Hence we do not find any reason or ground to doubt the testimony of PW1. Thus in all respects it can be believed that the complainant approached the opposite party for the insurance claim on the death of the insured goat. The denial on the part of the opposite party in paying the insured amount to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service. The inordinate delay in paying the insured amount will cause much mental agony to the complainant and it is to be compensated by the opposite party.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay the insured amount of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) with 9% interest from 2.5.2013 till realization. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of January, 2016.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Nirmala P.K. (Witness)
PW2 - Dr. Renjini. P.
Ext.A1 - Copy of the claim form
Ext.A2 & A2(a) - Copy of the Veterinary certificate (2 Nos.)
Ext.A3 - Copy of the Registration for NEFT / RTGS payments
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - Bindu. B. (Witnes)
Ext.B1 - Copy of the Sheep and Goat insurance policy
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
