Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II)

                   The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum.

                   2. Brief facts of the case is as follows:  The complainant is a member of the Cattle Development Scheme.  She insured her 5 cows with the opposite party, for a sum of Rs.10,063/- for 3 years from 30.12.2014 to 29.12.2017.  The policy No. is 76090347140400000024.  During the pendency of policy, two cows were died.  The cow bearing ear tag No.253 was   died on 03.04.2015 and another cow bearing ear tag No.254 died on 07.04.2015.  The insurance amount of the cow was Rs.27,500/- each.  The fact of the death of the cows were intimated to the opposite party and post-mortem was conducted by the government veterinary surgeon.  A claim was made to the opposite party along with relevant documents except the ear tag bearing No.254 so that it was lost.  This fact also was intimated to the opposite party.  But the opposite party has repudiated the claim on unreasonable grounds.  On 17.08.2015, she got the ear tag No.254 and she surrendered the tag with an application to the opposite party.  But the opposite party did not give any favourable answer.  Alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party, the complainant file this complaint for the insurance amount of Rs.27,500/- compensation for mental agony Rs.25,000/- and for the costs of the petition etc. 

                   3. In this case, the opposite party entered appearance and filed their version with the following main contentions.  The insurance is admitted.  The policy was given to the complainant for a period from 30.12.2014 to 29.12.2017.  The complainant intimated the death of animals bearing ear tag No.253 and 254 and she had produced all the documents except ear tag No.254.  The opposite party identified the insured animal bearing ear tag No.253 and paid the amount as per provision of the policy.  The opposite party could not identify the insured animal without producing the ear tag.  This fact was intimated to the complainant on 04.05.2015, that the tag No.254 should have to be produced to avoid repudiation of the claim.  Even though the complainant did not produce the ear tag in time, the complainant found the ear tag No.254 and surrendered the same before the opposite party.  But the surrender is too much late hence the claim was repudiated.  The claim was repudiated only on valid ground and the complaint is not entitled to get any amount by way of compensation.  With the above contentions, opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint.

                   4. On the basis of the pleadings of the opposite party, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not.

                   5. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A5 on the side of the complainant and the testimony of DW1 and DW2 and Exts.B1 to B3 and M.O.1 on the side of the opposite party. 

                   6. The Point:-  The complainant’s allegation against the opposite party is that she had taken a policy from the opposite party on 30.12.2014 and paid Rs.10,063/- for 3 years.  During the pendency of the policy, two cows were died.  The fact was intimated to the opposite party.  A claim was made to the opposite party along with relevant documents except the ear tag bearing No.254, so that it was lost.  But the opposite party repudiated the claim because the opposite party could not identify the cow without an ear tag.  On 17.08.2015, she got the ear tag No.254 and surrendered the tag with an application.  The opposite party did not pay the insured amount.  The non-payment of the said amount by the opposite party put the complainant to irreparable injury and loss and hence the complainant prays for allowing the relief. 

                   7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant filed a proof affidavit along with 5 documents.  On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A5.  Ext.A1 is the photocopy of the policy document.  Ext.A2 is the copy of the post-mortem report.  Ext.A3 is the copy of the letter dated 10.04.2015 issued by the veterinary surgeon to the opposite party.  Ext.A4 is the copy of letter sent by the complainant to the officer of the Milk Co-operative Department.  Ext.A5 is the copy of the repudiation letter dated 04.05.2015 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.

                   8. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite party is that the allegation of the complainant that the opposite party has repudiated the claim on unreasonable grounds.  It is false to say that the opposite party admitted the insurance.  Complainant had produced all the documents except ear tag No.254.  The opposite party could not identify the insured animal without the ear tag.  This fact was intimated to the complainant on 04.05.2015.  After the time limit the complainant surrendered the ear tag No.254 to opposite party.  So the allegation of the complainant is baseless and the opposite party has not caused any losses to the complainant.  Thus according to the opposite party, there is no deficiency in service from their part.  With the above contentions, opposite party argued for the dismissal of the complaint.

                   9. In order to prove the case of the opposite party, opposite party filed proof affidavit in lieu of their chief examination.  On the basis of their proof affidavit, they are examined as DW1and the administrative officer of the opposite party filed a proof affidavit along with 4 documents.  On the basis of the proof affidavit, she was examined as DW1 and documents produced are marked as Exts.B1 to B3 and M.O.1.  Ext.B1 is the copy of the policy from 30.12.2011 to 29.12.2015.  Ext.B2 is the letter issued by the complainant to the opposite party on 17.08.2015 about the surrender of the ear tag.  Ext.B3 is the post-mortem report dated 20.04.2015.  M.O.1 is the ear tag No.254 produced by the complainant. 

                   10. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the available materials on record and found that there is no dispute with regard to the insurance.  The only dispute between the parties are with regard to the surrender of the ear tag.  According to the complainant, she could not surrendered the ear tag at the time of producing claim form because it was missing.  On 17.08.2015, she got the ear tag No.254 and surrendered the tag with an application to the opposite party but they did not give the claim amount.  The complainant was examined as PW1 and stated that the ear tag was lost but on 17.08.2015 the complainant traced the same and surrendered it to the opposite party.  In cross-examination, the complainant answered, “Dt±iw 2þ3 amkw Ignªv \jvS-s¸« tag Rm³ co.þbn lmP-cm-¡n.  Fcp-¯n-ensâ ]cn-k-c¯v \n¶v Xs¶ tag In«n.  20.04.2014-þ BWv Rm³ claim document lmP-cm-¡n.  claim \ÂIn kabw tag CÃm-¯-Xn-\m submit sNbvXn-Ã.  Claim repudiate sNbvXXv ear tag CÃm-¯-Xn-\m BWv F¶Xv icn-bm-Wv”.

                   11. But the opposite party’s contention is that the animal could not be identified in the absence of the ear tag.  So the claim was repudiated.  The opposite party examined the administrative officer and doctor as DW1 and DW2 respectively.  DW1, the administrative officer has stated that the complainant insured her 5 cows.  In cross-examination of DW1 answered, “Ext.B1- F{X Znh-k-¯n-\Iw claim form \ÂIWw F¶v ]d-ªn-«n-Ã.  Claim form ssI¸-änb XobXn tcJ-s¸-Sp-¯m-dp­v”.  The veterinary doctor was examined as DW2.  She stated that she had given the post-mortem report, which is marked as Ext.B3.  She examined the deceased cow on 14.03.2015, 05.04.2015 and 06.04.2015.  The cow died on 07.04.2015.  In the post-mortem report (Ext.B3) she also stated that the year tag was lost.  The deposition of DW2 is as follows, “Post-mortem \S-¯nb kabw ]ip-hn\v ear tag D­m-bn-cp-¶n-Ã.  Rm³ ]ip acn-¡p-¶-Xn\v ap³]v sN¶ Znh-k-§-fn ear tag Dt­m F¶v t\m¡n-bn-cp-¶n-Ã.  post mortemþ ear tag irrecoverably lost F¶v Fgp-Xn-bXv ear tag ImWm-ª-Xn-\m hmZn-tbmSv tNmZn-¨-Xnsâ ASnØm-\-¯n-em-Wv.  Insure sNbvX ]ip-hns\ identify sN¿p-¶Xv ear tag am{Xw t\m¡n-b-Ã, adn¨v \ndw, height, age, photo Ch h¨pw a\-Ên-em-¡mw.  Ear tag \jvS-s¸-«-Xn-\m N¯ ]ip-hpw, insure sNbvX ]iphpw H¶Ã F¶v insurance co. ]d-bp-¶Xv icn-btÃ? AÃ.  H¶m-Wv.  F\n¡v t_m²y-ap­v”.  In her cross-examination she deposed as follows, “hmZn¡v insure sNbvX 5 ]ip D­m-bn-cp-¶p. AXn 2 F®w N¯p.  N¯ Hcp ]ip-hnsâ ear tag D­m-bn-cp-¶p. _m¡n 3 ]ip-¡Ä hmZn¡v DÅ-Xmbn F\v¡v t\cn-«-dn-bmw.  1 ]ip-hnsâ ear tag tabm³ t]mb kabw \jvS-s¸«p F¶-dnªp”.  So the discrepancy regarding the ear tag cannot be raised as a defence.  After 3 months, the complainant surrendered the ear tag that is marked as M.O.1.  In this case, DW1 admitted that the time limit is not mentioned in the Ext.B3 policy and the deposition of the DW2 that the identity of an insured animal not only on ear tag but also the colour, age, photo, height etc. can also be considered as an identify of the insured animal. Ext.M.O.1 is a supporting evidence in favour of the complainant.  Having regard to these matters and the serious deficiency on the part of the opposite party in repudiating the claim, we are of the opinion that she should be reasonably compensated by the opposite party.  In the circumstances, we fix Rs.10,000/- as compensation.  Therefore, we find that the above said act of the opposite party, the non-payment of the complainant’s insurance money is an illegal act and it clearly comes under the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service defined in C.P. Act 1986.  Hence opposite party is liable for the same.  Therefore, this complaint is allowable. 

                   12. In the result, this complaint is allowed, the opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.27,500/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand Five hundred only) with 12% interest on the insured amount from 07.04.2015 the date of the death of the insured animal along with Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) as costs of the petition within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the outstanding amount shall carry 12% further interest from the date of default.

                   Declared in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of September, 2016.

                                                                                             (Sd/-)

                                                                                        Sheela Jacob,

            (Member – II)

Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President)  :   (Sd/-)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I)                :   (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Shiney. P.S

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Photocopy of the policy document. 

A2 :  Photocopy of the post-mortem report. 

A3 :  Photocopy of the letter dated 10.04.2015 issued by the veterinary    

        surgeon to the opposite party. 

A4 : Photocopy of letter sent by the complainant to the officer of the Milk

       Co-operative Department. 

A5 :  Photocopy of the repudiation letter dated 04.05.2015 sent by

        the opposite party to the complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:

DW1  :  Dhanya Gopinath

DW2  :  Dr. G. Ambika Devi

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:

B1 :  Copy of the policy from 30.12.2014 to 29.12.2015. 

B2 : Letter dated 17.08.2015 issued by the complainant to the opposite party. 

B3 :  Post-mortem report and Description of animal produced by

        opposite party dated 20.04.2015. 

Court Exhibit:

M.O.1 :  Ear tag No.254 produced by the complainant. 

                                                                                               (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Shiney. P.S, Asariparampil Veedu, Kumpanadu. P.O.,

                    Vellikkara, Koipram Village, Pin – 689 547.

               (2) The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 1^st Floor,

                    Kunnithottathil Towers, St. Peter’s Junction, Ring Road,

                    Pathanamthitta – 689 645.

               (3)  The Stock File.