By Sri.Ananthakrishnan. P. S, President:
This is a complaint filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
2. The Complainant’s case in brief is as follows:-
The Complainant was the owner of a CB breed cow. The value of the cow was Rs.70,000/-. He had insured the cow on 18.06.2020 as per policy No.442301/47/2021/176 for a premium of Rs.1,290/- with the Opposite Party through the Director of Animal Husbandry. At the time of insurance, the cow was pregnant for 7months. Thereafter, on 28.08.2020, the cow had calved and due to bleeding, it died, though the Complainant had given proper treatment. Then, the Complainant informed the death of the cow to the Opposite Party. As instructed by the Opposite Party, doctor from Government veterinary hospital came and done post-mortem of the body of the cow and gave valuation certificate also. Thereafter, the Complainant submitted claim form to the Opposite Party to get the claim amount. The Doctor has mentioned the value of the cow as Rs.60,000/- in the valuation certificate. The Complainant spent more than Rs.60,000/- to foster the cow. Even then, the Opposite Party has given only Rs.40,000/- as the claim amount. Actually, the Complainant is entitled to get Rs.60,000/- as seen in the Valuation Certificate. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. Hence this complaint to get the remaining amount of Rs.20,000/- with interest @ 12%, Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of the litigation.
3. Opposite Party filed version which in brief is as follows:-
He admitted that the Complainant insured his cow with this Opposite Party and the policy is valid from 26.06.2020 to 25.06.2021. The Complainant purchased the said cow from one Santhosh for Rs.40,000/-. As per the valuation certificate given by doctor, the last date of calving was 28.08.2020 and milk available two months before the death of the cow was 7 litres per day. The animal had calved only once that too on 28.02.2020, 2 days before the death of the cow. The cow was not healthy and not properly maintained. The cow would have calved minimum of 2 times before it attains 5 years and 8 months. While proposing for the insurance, the animal was heifer. The average milk yield was mentioned by doctor as 8 litres. Hence the value of the cow was arrived by multiplying the milk yield by Rs.5,000/-, the price of the milk per litre, considering the its breed and age. Hence claim amount of Rs.40,000/- is proper. The value of the animal prior to the death in the valuation report is left blank by the Veterinary doctor. Hence this Opposite Party is not liable to pay the remaining amount of Rs.20,000/- with interest, compensation and cost. Hence prays to dismiss the complaint.
4. On the above pleadings, the points to be considered here are
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party?
- Reliefs and costs.
5. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimony of PW1, Ext.A1 to A3 and Ext.B1. There is no oral evidence from Opposite Party. Both sides heard.
6. Point No.1:- It is an admitted fact that the Complainant was the owner of a CB breed cow and he insured this cow with the Opposite Party for Rs.60,000/- at a premium of Rs.1,290/-. Admittedly, the cow died 2 days after calving and the Complainant had submitted a claim form by claiming Rs.60,000/-. It is also an admitted fact that the Opposite Party has given Rs.40,000/- to the Complainant as the claim amount by multiplying 8 litres, the milk yield by Rs.5,000/-, the value of the milk per litre. According to the Opposite Party, this is proper claim amount.
7. The Complainant disputed that he is entitled to get only Rs.40,000/-. He claims Rs.60,000/-. He has given evidence as PW1. Ext.A1 is the policy schedule which shows that the Complainant insured his cow for Rs.60,000/-. Ext.A2 is the treatment certificate and Ext.A3 is the Valuation Certificate. Ext.B1 is the claim form given by the Complainant. It is evident from Ext.A2 and A3 that the cow gave birth of two calves on 28.08.2020 and died due to bleeding on 30.08.2020. As per Ext. A3, valuation certificate, the cow died due to shock from prolapse of uterus and bleeding. Anyhow, it is an admitted fact that the Complainant insured the cow for Rs.60,000/- and the cow died on 30.08.2020 which is within the insurance period. So the Complainant is entitled to get the insurance claim. Opposite Party calculated the claim by multiplying 8, the milk yield allegedly suggested by the doctor by Rs.5,000/-, the value of 1 litre milk. According to Opposite Party, the veterinary doctor mentioned the average milk yield as 8 litres in Ext.A3 valuation Certificate. But, when we peruse Ext.A3, valuation certificate, the doctor mentioned milk yield as 7 litres. We don’t understand from where the Opposite Party got that the milk yield of this cow is 8 litres. So also, there are no documents to prove that the insurance claim is being calculated by multiplying the milk yield by the value of one litre milk. The claim of the Complainant is that the veterinary doctor stated in Ext.A3 that the value of the cow is Rs.60,000/-. But the Opposite Party contented that the column to write the valuation of cow in Ext.A3 is kept blank by veterinary doctor. It is true that first page of Ext.A3 does not contain the value of the cow. There, the relevant column is kept blank by the doctor. But in the second page, doctor mentioned the value of the cow as Rs. 60,000/- prior to illness. Evidently, the cow was pregnant only once and the cow died on 30.08.2020 which was two days after the delivery. Opposite party admitted that at the time of proposal of insurance, the cow was heifer and it became pregnant when it was with the Complainant. So, how the veterinary doctor reached that the milk yield of this cow was 7 litres in Ext.A3, valuation certificate. Therefore, here, there is no material to hold that the calculation made by the Opposite Party is correct. As we already stated, the Complainant insured the cow for Rs.60,000/- and value of the cow suggested by doctor was Rs. 60,000/-. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the Opposite Party is liable to pay Rs.60,000/-. Evidently, they have given only Rs.40,000/- to the Complainant. Therefore the Opposite Party is liable to pay the balance of Rs. 20,000/- to the Complainant. So, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Thus, point No.1 is found in favour of the Complainant.
8. Point No.2:- Since, we found Point No.1 in favour of Complainant, he is entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.20,000/-. He wants to get 12% interest for the said amount. It is evident that the Opposite Party though liable to give Rs.60,000/- to the Complainant as insurance claim, they have only given Rs.40,000/-. So, according to our opinion, the Complainant is entitled to get interest for Rs.20,000/- @ 6% per annum. The Complainant claims Rs.20,000/- towards compensation. This is an exorbitant amount. So, in our opinion, he is entitled to get Rs.5,000 /-as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as cost of this litigation.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) to the Complainant with 6% interest per annum from the date of the complaint ie from 3.11.2020 till realisation. They are also directed to give Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) towards litigation expenses to the Complainant. They are also directed to pay this amount to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 31st day of August 2022.
Date of Filing:-03.11.2020.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Shylaja. K. G. Housewife.
Witness for the Opposite Party:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Copy of Policy Schedule (Live Stock Cattle Insurance)
A2. Copy of Treatment Certificate.
A3. Copy of Valuation Certificate.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party:-
B1. Details of insured cow submitted by Complainant to Opposite Party.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
