By. Sri. A. S. Subhagan, Member:-

            This is a complaint filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

            2.  Facts of the case in brief:-  The Complainant had insured her cow with the Opposite Party for Rs.65,000/- through the Veterinary Hospital.  All the required procedures were completed by the Veterinary Doctor and ear tag was fixed to the cow properly.  On delivery, due to decease, the cow was died.  The treatment was done by the Veterinary Doctor Mr. Sunil, of Meppadi.  The cow was treated for 14 days and post mortem was done by the doctor on death of the cow and post mortem report was also prepared.  All the documents required for getting the insurance claim was submitted to the Opposite Party.  The representatives of the Opposite Party visited for enquiry and facts were satisfied to them. But, till date, the Opposite Party has not allowed the insurance claim.  This act of the Opposite Party is deficiency in service and hence the Complainant has approached the Commission with the following prayers:-

1. To direct the Opposite Party to give Rs.65,000/- as insurance claim
2. To direct the Opposite Party to pay interest @ 12% per annum with effect from the date of this complaint
3. To direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation
4. To direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs.5,000/- towards expenses and
5. To direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs.2,500/- towards cost of this complaint.

3.  Upon getting notice, the Opposite Party appeared before the Commission and filed version. The contents of version filed by the Opposite Party in brief is as follows:- 

The Opposite Party admitted that the cow bearing ear tag No.420043/899996, was a milching jersey crossed breed cow with fawn HT colour was insured with the Opposite Party as per NLM/GOSAMURUDHY SCHEME under Animal Husbandry Department of Kerala.  But the Complainant had submitted a claim with respect of some other cattle having colour of fawn black.   Since the colour specified in the policy and the colour of the cow died are not matching, the claim was repudiated. They also contended that the Opposite Party could not proceed with the claim as they could not properly identify the cow.   All other allegations of the Complainant are denied by the Opposite Party and hence they prayed to dismiss the complaint with compensatory cost.

4.  Chief affidavit was filed by the Complainant and Exts.A1 and A2 were marked from her side.  The Complainant was examined as PW1.  From the side of the Opposite Party, Ext.B1 and Ext.X1 series of documents were marked.  Opposite Party did not adduce any oral evidence.  Finally, the complaint was heard on 03.07.2024.

5.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Commission raised the following points for consideration:

1. Whether there has been any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Party?
2. Relief and Cost?

6. Point No.1:-  It is admitted fact that the cow was insured with the Opposite Party for Rs.65,000/-.  The case of the Complainant is that on delivery due to disease, though the cow was died and the claim form together with all documents for getting insurance claim was submitted to Opposite Party, they repudiated the claim, which is deficiency in service for which the Opposite Party is liable.  The main contention of the Opposite Party is that they could not identify the cow as the Complainant had submitted  a claim with respect to some other cattle having colour of fawn black.  The Opposite Party has submitted that the ear tag number of the cow was 420043/899996.  On a thorough probe in to the material facts of the case, Commission finds that the tag number of the deceased cow 420043/899996 is the same tag number of the insured cow, which is evident from Ext.X1 series of document-Cattle Death Claim Intimation.  This Cattle Death Claim Intimation Form was issued by the Veterinary Surgeon Dr. Anil.  In the repudiation letter of Ext.X1 series, it is recorded by the Opposite Party that “on scrutiny of documents we could find that the insured cattle is entirely different from that of deceased cattle.  The colour specified in the policy and the colour of the died cattle in the photos submitted for claim is different.  As per our records the identification marks of the insured cattle is not matching with that of deceased cattle”.  This contention of the Opposite Party cannot be admitted because in the X1 series of documents the colour of the cow is shown as fawn and black.  The photographs submitted by the Opposite Party also reveals the same colour. The  ear tag number is also the same.  From the above fact, circumstances and evidence of this case, we convince that the Opposite Party has repudiated the cattle insurance claim of the Complainant on flimsy and unsustainable grounds, which is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Actually, the Opposite Party has conducted an unreliable and unsustainable research with an evil mind to repudiate the claim of the Complainant so as to get undue enrichment of money without settling the claim of the Complainants. This is deficiency in service/unfair trade practice. So, there has been deficiency in service/unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Party.  So, Point No.1 is proved against the Opposite Party.

7.  Point No.2:-  As point No.1 is proved against the Opposite Party, they are liable to pay insurance claim, compensation, interest on the claim amount and cost of the complaint to the Complainant. Though the Complainant has prayed for expenses of Rs.5,000/- no evidence in this regard such as bills etc for proving expenses have not been submitted and hence that prayer cannot be accepted.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Party is directed  

1. To pay Rs.65,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five Thousand Only) being the insurance claim amount together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this complaint
2. To pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) towards compensation and
3. To pay Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand and Five Hundred Only) towards cost of this complaint.

The above amounts shall be paid by the Opposite Party to the Complainant within one month from the date of this Order, failing which the amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum till realization.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30^th day of August 2024.

Date of Filing:-13.09.2022.

PRESIDENT   : Sd/-

MEMBER       : Sd/-

MEMBER       : Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:-

PW1.              Ushakumari.                                                Dairy Farmer.

Witness for the Opposite Party:-

                        Nil

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1.                  Copy of Cattle Insurance Policy.

A2.                  Copy of Letter.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:-

B1.                  Copy of Cattle Insurance Policy.

X1 (Series).   Documents Produced by Opposite Party (Cattle Death Claim

Intimation, Post mortem Report, Cattle claim form veterinary certificate, Claim form with photos, claim repudiation letter with acknowledgment card, and ear tag).

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

                                                                                             ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

                                                                                                  CDRC, WAYANAD.

Kv/-