SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER

        This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986  for an order directing  the OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- as the insured amount   and to pay Rs.25,000/- as the compensation for mental agony caused  to the complainant  and cost of litigation  to the complainant for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice  on  the  part of OP’s.

The brief  of the complaint :

    The  complainant  was one of the milk development agriculturist registered under 2^nd OP.  The complainant had purchased a cow in 2015  and its tag Number was 42001/5021174 and insured to 1^st OP and the policy No.is 76130017170400003533.  Two times the cow delivered and  thereafter no  symptom of conceiving.  Then the complainant reported the same to 1^st OP and claimed PTD claim.  The veterinary surgeon Olayambadi verified and valued the cattle and gave certificate of valuation .  After his application  the veterinary surgeon investigator of OP inspected the cow.  At the time of examination of the cow the  tag was also handed over to the investigator and veterinary surgeon.  During the examination there was no doubt arose in the identification of the cow since the tag was also seen on the cow and it was brought in the  custody of the investigator. But the claim was rejected on a finding that the investigator could not identify the cow since it’s tag could not be find out.  The report was filed by the investigator stating that the animal could not be identified since the tag was misplaced.  So the insured amount has been denied to the complainant without any basis.  Then the  complainant send a lawyer notice to 1^st OP to consider the application  and granted the insured sum to the complainant.  But OP send a reply stating that the cow cannot be identified and in no way to allow the claim amount.  The act of the  OPs ,the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss.  So there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  Hence the complaint.

       After receiving the notice  1^st OP entered before the commission  and filed his written version.  2^nd OP not filed version.  1^st OP  contended  that the investigator has found that there was no identification tag on the cow at the time of inspection made by him personally and he has reported that there was no tag on the cow at the time of  inspection and according to him the claim of the complainant cannot be considered as per the insurance policy and its conditions.  As per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, if the complainant fails to produce the ear tag before the OP , the principle of “no tag No claim” will be applied and hence the insured is not entitled to make any claim for loss towards the cattle without a tag. Moreover the complainant has sold the cattle for meat value, but the complainant has wilfully suppressed the sale consideration.  The complainant will be entitled only for the amount after deducting the meat value he appropriated by selling the cow for the meat value.  The complainant has not produced any document to show the meat value of the cattle, so the complainant is not entitled to claim for any amount  from the insurer. So there is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of 1^st  OP.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

      On the basis of the rival contentions by the pleadings the following  issues  were framed for consideration.

1. Whether there is  any deficiency of service   on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
3. Relief and cost.

     The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PWs1 to 3 and Exts. A1 to A6 were marked. On OP’s side DW1 was examined and Ext.B1 marked. Both sides argued the matter and complainant filed argument note also.

Issue No.1: 

         The  Complainant  adduced evidence before the commission by submitting  his chief affidavit in lieu of  his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the  contentions in the version.  He was cross examined as PW1 by 1^st  OP. According to the  complainant Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on his part to substantiate his case.  In Ext.A1 is the lawyer notice send by the complainant to 1^st OP .  Ext.A2 is the acknowledgment card, Ext.A3 is the photograph and Ext.A4 is the cattle insurance policy.  At the time of evidence the complainant(PW1) deposed that  പശുവിനെ ഞാൻ ഇറച്ചിവിലയ്ക്ക് വിറ്റു.  12000/- രൂപ കിട്ടി.  ഞാനും വാങ്ങാൻ വന്ന ആളുമാണ് വില നിശ്ചയിച്ചത്.  Moreover in re-examination PW1 stated that ആദ്യമല്ല tag കൊടുത്തത് 2-ാംമത്തെ പരിശോധന സമയത്താണ് tag കൊടുത്തത്.Doctor ടെ പേര് Priyan Alex എന്നാണ്. Company യുടെ ആളുടെ പേരാണ് Babu.  In the evidence of PW2(Dr.Priyan Alex.G.Rebello) who clearly deposed that 2018 കാലഘട്ടത്തിൽ ഞാൻ ഓലയമ്പാടി  Govt. Veterinary Hospital Surgeon ആയിരുന്നു. ആ കാലഘട്ടത്തിൽ ഞാൻ Ambu എന്നവരുടെ പശുവിനെ പരിശോധിച്ച്  PTD certificate കൊടുത്തിരുന്നു & valuation certificate ഉ നൽകിയിരുന്നു.  The documents  Exts.A5&A6 marked through this PW2.  Moreover he stated that Exts.A5&A6 നോക്കിയാൽ പശുവിന്ർറെ tag number, colour, breed etc എന്നിവ പറഞ്ഞിട്ടുണ്ട്.  In cross examination he also stated that” സംഭവസമയത്ത്  പശുവിന്ർറെ കാതിൽ tag ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നില്ല എന്ന് പറയുന്നു? ശരിയല്ല. The Veterinary surgeon, who is a responsible employer of  the State Government and was working the Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Olayambadi as a  surgeon who also attended the cattle at the time of  its insurance and fixed  the tag in the ear of cattle, which has been  mentioned in the Ext.A4 document.  Moreover he has given valuation  certificate(Ext.A6)  of the cow ie Rs.50,000/-.  On complainant’s side one Mr.Reghunathan (PW3) is also  examined to prove the case of complainant.  In his evidence he stated that  ഹർജിക്കാരന്ർറെ പശുവിനെ പരിശോധിക്കുന്ന സമയത്ത് ഞാൻ ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു. രേഖയിൽ ഞാനും ഗോപാലകൃഷ്ണനും സാക്ഷിയായി ഒപ്പ് വച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്. രണ്ട് പരിശോധനാ സമയത്തും ഞാൻ ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു. Companyയുടെ ഉദ്യോഗസ്ഥർ tag അഴിച്ചെടുത്തത് 2-ാംമത്തെ പരിശോധനയിലാണ്.In cross examination  he stated that  “-2ാംമത് പരിശോധിച്ചപ്പോൾ പശുവിന് tag ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു. In the evidence of DW1 also stated that ഈ കേസ്സിൽ അത്തരത്തിൽ ഒരു അപേക്ഷ കിട്ടിയോ? കിട്ടിയിട്ടുണ്ട്.  അതുപ്രകാരം ഒരു Veterinary surgeon നും നിങ്ങളുടെ officers ഉം വന്ന് പരിശോധിക്കും?  അങ്ങനെയല്ല ഞങ്ങൾ ഒരു prescribed form  നല്കും അത് പൂരിപ്പിച്ച് doctor നെ ക്കൊണ്ട് പരാതിക്കാരൻ തന്നെ പരിശോധിപ്പിച്ച് റിപ്പോർട്ട് നല്കുകയാണ് വേണ്ട്ത് . ഈ കേസ്സിൽ അത്തരത്തിൽ പരിശോധന നടത്തിയോ? നടത്തിയിട്ടില്ല. But the 1^st OP rejected the claim that” no tag no claim”  principle adopted.  DW1 also admitted that  1^st OP was received the claim form from the complainant.  So we hold that there is deficiency of service  and unfair trade practice on the part of  1^st OP.  Hence the issue No.1 found in favour of the complainant and  answered accordingly.

Issue Nos.2&3:

        As discussed above the complainant had insured his cow in 1^st OP’s insurance company.  The period is from  24/11/2017 to 23/11/2018.  The  policy No. is 76130017170400003533  and the tag No. was 42001/50 21174.  After his application the Veterinary  Surgeon, investigator of 1^st OP inspected the cow , verified  and valued the cattle and gave certificate of  valuation also.  But the 1^st OP rejected the PTD claim.  The 1^st OP stated that “No tag no  claim” .  Thereafter the complainant sold the cow  for meat value of Rs.12,000/-.  No dispute that the sum assured is Rs.50,000/-. So we hold that                                1^st OP is directly bound to redressal the grievance caused to the complainant.   So the complainant is entitled to get Rs.38,000/-(Rs.50,000-12,000) from 1^st OP with interest @4% per annum from the date of complaint till realization .  Moreover the complainant is entitled to get Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant along with Rs.5000/- as litigation cost. Thus issue No.2&3 are also accordingly answered. 

          In the result the complaint is allowed in part  directing the   1^st opposite party  to pay Rs.38,000/-(Rs.50,000-12,000) to the complainant with interest @4% per annum from the date of complaint till realization .  Moreover the1st opposite party also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and  Rs.5000/- as litigation cost  within  30 days of  receipt  of this order. In default the amount of Rs.38,000/- carries 9% interest per annum from the date of complaint till realization.  Failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as  per the  provisions  of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts:

A1- copy of lawyer notice

A2-Acknowledgment card

A3- Photograph

A4-Cttle Insurance policy

A5-PTD certificate

A6- Claim form with valuation certificate

B1- Insurance policy

PW1-P.V.Ambu- complainant

PW2- Dr.Priyan  Alex.G. Rebello-witness of PW1

PW3-Raghunathan.K.R-  do-

DW1-Sreerag.C-1^st  OP

Sd/                                                         Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR