D.o.F:09/05/2011

D.o.O:26/9/2011

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                             CC.NO.112/11

                     Dated this, the 26th     day of September 2011

PRESENT:

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                           : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                      : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                         : MEMBER

A.J.Joseph , S/o Joseph,                                     

R/at Anjana Bhavan, Manchuchal,

Maloth, Konnakkad PO, Hosdurg,Kasaragod.      : Complainant

Adv.Santhosh Thomas,Kasaragod)

1.The Branch Manager

   United India Insurance Co. Ltd                           : Opposite parties

  P.B.No.29,2^nd floor,Nithyananda Building,

   Kottacherry,Kanhangad.

(Adv.C.Damodaran,Kasaragod)

2. Agricultural Officer,Balal PO.

                                                                                       ORDER

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ               : PRESIDENT

        This complaint is filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party on the ground that they rejected the insurance claim preferred due to the death of the cow insured with them.

 2. According to 1st opposite party the claim is closed since the ear tag is not surrendered which is  a policy condition to honor the claim.

 3. Complainant filed proof affidavit as PW1 to support  his claim.  Exts.A1 to A5 marked through him.  He faced cross examination by the counsel for 1^st opposite party.  The Veterinary Surgeon who conducted the post mortem has examined as PW2.  Exts.B1 & B2 marked on the side of opposite party.

 4.  Complainant in his affidavit has stated that the loss of ear tag is not a deliberate act and the identification marks noted by the insurer with the photos of the cow are available with them and after comparing the same they could have settled the claim.

5. PW2, Dr.C.D.Jose , the Veterinary Surgeon who conducted the post mortem of the dead cow has deposed that he issued Ext.A2 post mortem certificate  noted a hole in the ear of the cow but there was no tag.  He further stated that he has identified the cow with insurance particulars and the color of the cow was black and white and it was of CBHF variety.  PW2  also deposed that the dead cow was the insured cow with 1^st opposite party .

6.  But according to 1^st opposite party the surrender of ear tag is an essential requirement to honor the claim as per the conditions of policy.  But the complainant has not surrendered the ear tag .  There by the complainant violated the policy conditions and hence the claim is closed.

7.  We are of the view that due to the lack of ear tag rejecting the claim in toto is not justifiable.  1^st Opposite party could have settle the claim on non-standard basis.

8. As per Ext.B2 policy the cow is insured for  `16000/-.  The complainant is entitled for 75% of the said amount i.e. ` 12000/-. Hence the 1^st opposite party is  liable to pay ` 12000/- to the complainant.

     In the result complaint is allowed and 1^st opposite party is directed to pay ` 12000/- to the complainant together with a cost of ` 2000/- .  Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.  Failing which complainant is entitled for 9% interest for the said amount from the date of complaint till payment.  2^nd opposite party is exonerated from liabilities.

Exts.

A1- copy of claim form

A2- copy of postmortem certificate

A3-22/2/11-letter send by OP to PW1

A4-25/2/11copy of reply

A5-18/3/11- copy of repudiation of claim by OP

B1- Livestock claim

B2- Cattle insurance policy schedule

PW1-A.J.Joseph- Complainant

PW2-Dr.C.D.Jose- witness of  complainant.

Sd/                                                Sd/                                      Sd/

MEMBER                               MEMBER                               PRESIDENT

eva                                       /Forwarded by Order/

SENIOR SUPEWRINTENDENT