BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 28th October 2016
PRESENT
SMT. C.V. SHOBHA : HONBLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : HONBLE MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.302/2013
(Admitted on 27.10.2013)
Annu Poojary,
S/o Doomappa Poojary,
Aged about 56 years,
R/at. Kolya House,
Charvaka Post,
Puttur Taluk,D.K.
……… Complainant
(Advocate for Complainant by Sri. SD)
VERSUS
The manager,
United India Insurance Co.Ltd,
Prabhu Building, 1st Floor,
Main Road, Puttur,D.K.
…. Opposite Party
(Advocate for the Opposite Party: Sri. DRK)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HONBLE PRESIDENT
SMT. C.V. SHOBHA
- 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service as against the opposite parties claiming certain reliefs.
2. The complainant prays for the order for reliefs directing the opposite parties to refund Rs. 37,000/ along with interest of 12% from 04.04.2013 till payment, to pay Rs.20,000/ compensation, and to pay Rs. 10,000/- as expenses, and such other further suitable relief’s to be granted as the Forum deems fit under the circumstances of the case.
II. The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant cow was insured with the Opposite Party as per policy No.070805/47/12/01/00000047 for Rs.37,000/ and the policy was valid from 03.07.2012 to 02.07.2013. The complainant has paid a premium of Rs.2,079/. The complainant cow was earlier given tag number of 602300/17076 and since the tag was lost the Opposite Party has given a new tag number as per number 602300/26679 and the Opposite Party has endorsed the same on 26.02.2013. in this regard Deputy Manager D.K. Milk Union Puttur Camp has addressed letter dated. 25.02.2013 to the Opposite Party.When the matter stood thus the complainant cow died due to respiratory failure and pneumonia on 04.04.2013 at 10 A.M. Thereafter the same was informed to the Opposite Party and the veterinary surgeon from Puttur Camp office has conducted postmortem and issued postmortem report dt. 12.04.2013 along with veterinary certificate. The complainant has preferred claim to the Opposite Party as per claim form dt. 12.04.2013 along with copy of the policy, original veterinary certificate, original post mortem report. Thereafter, the complainant has received repudiation letter dt. 17.06.2013 stating that from the investigation and photos it is found that cow that was insured and cow that was died are deferent and hence the claim was closed as no claim. Hence the complainant got issued regd lawyers notice dt. 15.07.2013 to the Opposite Party and the same was served on the Opposite Party on 17.07.2013 without demur. Hence the above complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act,) seeking direction from this FORA to the opposite parties to refund the entire sale consideration paid by the complainant to the opposite parties and also compensation and costs of the proceedings.
III. Version Notice served to the opposite party by RPAD through an advocate and filed their version. The Opposite Party admits that the complainant cow was insured with the Opposite Party as per policy bearing No. 070805/47/12/01/00000047 for Rs.37,000/ and the policy was valid from 03.07.2012 to 02.07.2013. The Opposite Party also admits that complainant has paid a premium of Rs.2,079/ under the said policy. The Opposite Party admits that complainant cow was earlier given tag number of 602300/17076 and since the tag was lost the Opposite Party , has given a new tag number 602300/26679 and the Opposite Party has endorsed the same on 26.02.2013. The Opposite Party submits that the Opposite Party is not aware about the alleged death of complainant cow due to the reasons stated by the complainant in the complaint and its alleged postmortem by the alleged veterinary surgeon at puttur camp office etc. The complainant had lodged a claim papers pertaining to death of a cow under the policy No.070805/47/12/01/00000047 to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party after receiving the aforesaid claim paper has verified the same by investigation as well as on scrutiny of documents/photos. The Opposite Party from the investigation report as well as on scrutiny of documents/photos observed that the cow insured and cow died are different. The Opposite Party further observed that the photograph of animal which was submitted to the office of the Opposite Party along with the vaternity certificate while availing insurance and photograph of dead animal submitted by the complainant for the alleged claim, completely differs. Therefore, the Opposite Party rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.
The Opposite Party denied that at the time of retagging, the complainant has submitted the photos of the pregnant cow and the same has delivered a calf. The Opposite Party denied that thereafter the cow has died and hence the fresh photographs of the cow was submitted and will certainly look different than the earlier photographs. The Opposite Party denied that it is the tag number and not the photograph which will identify the cow. The Opposite Party denied that the cow is identified only by tag number. The Opposite Party denied that the certificate issued by the veterinary doctor clearly shows that the complainant cow insured with the Opposite Party has died. Since the insured cow and photograph of the dead animal submitted by complainant is entire differs, the Opposite Party has repudiated the complainant alleged claim. Therefore there is no deficiency of service on part of the Opposite Party as alleged by the complainant in the complaint. In support of the complainant One Mr.Annu Poojary, (CW1) the complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint, answered the interrogatories and produced the document same has been marked as Ex C1 to C9. On behalf of the opposite parties not lead any evidence hence treated nil.
IV. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the complainant proves that, there is a deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
- If so, for what quantum and from whom the complainant in entitled?
- What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsel and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:.
Point No. (i) and (ii): As per Affirmative
Point No. (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
V. POINTS No. (i) and (ii):
The complainant as a consumer, obtained cattle insurance policy vide No. No.070805/47/12/01/00000047 for a total sum insured Rs.37,000/ on 03.07.2012, valid through 02.07.2013 by paying Rs.2,079/ as a premium amount with the Opposite Party insurance company as per Ex.C1 policy document on 04.04.2013, at 10:00 AM, due to respiratory failure and pneumonia, the said cow met its sudden and unfortunate death. As per the procedure, the complainant informed about the death of cow to the Opposite Party. Also, informed the veterinary surgeon, Puttur to conduct postmortem whose report was sent back to the complainant on 12.04.2013 along with the above post mortem report and other necessary original documents, the complainant sought for a refund of Rs.37,000/ from the Opposite Party as per the policy terms on 17.06.2013, a repudiation letter was served by the Opposite Party to the complainant stating that according to their investigation and related photographs, it has been found that the insured now and the cow that had undergone postmortem were different. Thus, Opposite Party repudiated the claim as no claim. Even after legal notice dated 15.07.2013 was served to the Opposite Party by the complainant as per Ex.C8, no reply was given by the Opposite Party. Hence this complaint. Furthermore, no report pertaining to the so called investigation carried out by the Opposite Party has been supplied to the complainant. Naturally, the photos taken during the healthy life time of the cow may somewhat be different from that taken after its death. Also the tag no. of the cow would not be visible in any of the photographs. Further, the doctor clearly stated that the dead cow was the same one that was insured as per the policy. This is stated in document Ex C2. Description of dead animal as per Ex.C6 and Ex.C7 i.e. post mortem report clearly disclose the fact that the dead cow was exactly the cow that was insured under the above mentioned policy. As per the above mentioned reasons together with oral and documentary evidence of complainant and notes of arguments, also, in the absence of any evidence on the part of Opposite Party to substantiate their defense, we come to a conclusion that this is a case of pure deficiency of service and also amounting to unfair trade practice. Hence, we hold the above point No. 1 and 2 in the affirmative. Hence Opposite Party is liable to pay an insured a sum of Rs.37,000/ to complainant as per the policy terms together with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from 12.04.2013 till realization, a sum of Rs.5000/ towards compensation for their false plea and causing harassment and mental agony to the complainant and also another sum of Rs.3,000/ towards cost and litigation charges incurred by the complainant.
POINTS No. (iii): In the result, as per the Order below:
ORDER
Complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Party is liable and responsible to pay for a sum of Rs.37,000/ (Rupees thirty seven thousand only) to the complainant as per the policy terms together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 12.04.2013 till realization. Further Opposite Party is also liable to pay for a sum of Rs.5,000/(Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation and another sum of Rs.3,000/ (Rupees three thousand only) towards cost and litigation expenses incurred by the complainant in the above case. Hence the payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties and therefore the file shall be consigned to record room.
(1 to 7 pages dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 28th day of October 2016)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI) (SMT. C.V.SHOBHA)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore. Mangalore.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1: Mr.Annu Poojary
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.C1: 03.07.2013: Copy of the Insurance policy of the Opposite Party.
Ex.C2: 25.02.2013: Copy of the letter addressed by Deputy Manager, D.K. Milk Union to the Opposite Party.
Ex.C3: 26.02.2013: Endorsement issued by the Opposite Party.
Ex.C4: 17.06.2013: Repudiation letter of the Opposite Party.
Ex.C5: 12.04.2013: Copy fo the claim Form.
Ex.C6: 12.04.2013: Copy of the Veterinary Certificate.
Ex.C7: 12.04.2013: Copy of the Post Mortem Report.
Ex.C8: 15.07.2013: O/c of regd notice.
Ex.C9: 17.07.2013: Postal Acknowledgement.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Nil
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Nil
Dated: 28.10.2016. PRESIDENT
