CC Filed on 19.07.2010
Disposed on 20.05.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 20th day of May 2011
PRESENT:
Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 132/2010
Between:
Sri. Anjinappa, S/o. Sikonappa, Aged about 52 years, R/o. NagapuraVillage, Masthi Hobli, Malur Taluk. (By Advocate Sri. M.S. Badri & others) | ….Complainant |
V/S 1. The Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, No. 12/123/1, Javali Street, Palamaner, Chittor District, Andhra Pradesh. (By Advocate Sri. B. Kumar & others) 2. The Manager, Primary Agricultural Rural Development Bank Limited, Malur. | ….Opposite Parties |
ORDERS
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.20,500/- towards the value of insured cow with compensation and costs and to adjust the said amount to the loan account of complainant with OP.2.
2. The material facts of complainant’s case may be stated as follows:
That the complainant obtained loan from OP.2 for purchase of C.B. Cow and the said cow was insured for Rs.20,500/- with OP.1 for the period from 21.05.2008 to 20.05.2009, along with other cows for which OP.2 had lent loans in favour of different persons. The insurance was obtained by OP.2 and the beneficiaries were different owners of various cows including the complainant. At the time of insurance complainant’s cow was tagged with ear tag No. 4688 and its other descriptions were also given in the relevant papers.
The said insured cow of complainant died due to ill-health on 10.12.2008. A claim was preferred by complainant through OP.2-Bank for payment/adjustment of the insurance amount to the loan account of complainant. The claim was preferred along with necessary papers and also the ear tag No. 4688 preserved at the time of disposal of the dead body of the cow. After processing the claim papers, OP.1 repudiated the claim as per its letter dated 27.01.2009 addressed to OP.2 stating that the identification marks of the animal bearing ear tag No. 4688 as stated in the health certificate were not tallied to the identification marks of the cow shown in the photograph produced at the time of making claim for insurance.
The complainant after coming to know the rejection of claim and its reason, found out that at the time of furnishing the claim form by inadvertence a wrong photo was submitted by him which was not belonging to the cow bearing tag No. 4688. Then he submitted through proper channel the correct photo of the cow with tag No. 4688 which had died on 10.12.2008. However OP.1 did not reconsider the claim of complainant after receipt of the correct photo relating to cow bearing tag No. 4688. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint.
3. OP.1 appeared and contested the claim. OP.1 admitted that the cow of complainant with tag No. 4688 was insured with it. It admitted the receipt of claim form with necessary documents. It contended that the descriptions appearing in the photo of the cow produced along with the claim form did not tally with the descriptions of the cow bearing Tag No. 4688 as may be gathered from the earlier records obtained at the time of insuring the cow. Therefore it rejected the claim and issued repudiation letter dated 27.01.2009. OP.1 has not stated any reason for not reconsidering the claim after obtaining the photos along with letter dated 18.02.2009.
4. OP.2-Bank did not appear inspite of service of notice and it has also not filed any version.
5. Both parties filed affidavits and documents. We heard the Learned Counsel for the parties.
6. The following points arise for our consideration:
Point No.1: Whether the repudiation of the claim by OP.1
is justified?
Point No.2: If point No.1 is held in negative to which reliefs
the complainant is entitled to?
Point No.3: To what order?
7. After considering the records and the submissions of parties our findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1: We have gone through the entire records particularly the photos produced by parties. It can be seen that at the time of preferring claim, the complainant had submitted the photo of dead cow with tag No. 4688 and he had also produced another photo of the cow which was taken during its life time. The complainant contended that the photo of the living cow produced by him was belonging to a different cow but not to the insured dead cow. Realizing that mistake the complainant subsequently furnished the correct photo of the insured cow taken during its lifetime. The comparison of these photos clearly shows that the complainant must have produced a different photo not belonging to the insured cow along with claim form. The photo of dead cow shows that it was having a tag in its ear. The documents prepared by Veterinary Doctor at the time of postmortem fully establish that the cow with ear tag No. 4688 had died on 10.12.2008. It can be seen that the descriptions of the dead cow as can be gathered from the photo tally with the description of the cow insured which tag No. 4688. Therefore we are satisfied that complainant has wrongly furnished the photo of a different cow at the time of claim form due to inadvertence and subsequently he furnished the correct photo which tallies with the photo of dead cow. It can also be seen that the animal is identified with tag number and other descriptions stated at the time of insurance. The records prepared by Veterinary Doctor clearly show that the dead cow had the same tag No. 4688 in its ear and the other descriptions of dead cow tallied with the descriptions mentioned in the papers prepared at the time of insuring the cow. For the above reasons we hold point No.1 in negative.
Point No.2: As point No.1 is held in negative, OP.1 is liable to pay the insurance amount of Rs.20,500/-. The claim should have been settled within a month from the date of letter dated 18.02.2009 sending correct photo of the dead cow which was insured. Therefore OP.1 may be asked to pay interest at the rate of 8% p.a. on Rs.20,500/- from 01.04.2009 till the date of payment. Hence point No.2 is held accordingly.
Point No.3: For the above reasons we pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint is allowed with costs of Rs.1,000/-. OP.1 shall pay Rs.20,500/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from 01.04.2009 till the date of payment on the said amount, besides paying costs of Rs.1,000/-, within 45 days from the date of this order.
The amount payable by OP.1 shall be credited to the loan account of complainant maintained with OP.2-Bank. OP.2 shall pay the balance if any to complainant after deducting the amount due from complainant.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 20th day of May 2011.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
