Complainant : C.A.Santhosh, Chavarattil House, P.O.Ponnore,
Parapur(via), Thrissur.
(By Adv.V.M.Vinosh, Thrissur)
Respondent : The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., rep. by Divisional
Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Thrissur
Divisional Office, Kollannur Bldg., Palace Road,
Thrissur.
(By Adv.P.Sathishkumar, Thrissur)
ORDER
By Smt.Padmini Sudheesh, President
The case is that the complainant is a person who is rearing cows for his livelihood. He has purchased four cows in the scheme ‘Pasugramam’ and insured the cows. One cow having tag No.100600/6616 of black and white colour was died on 7/7/07 due to illness. It was informed to the respondent and applied to get compensation. The deceased cow was six years of age and has got 16 ltrs. of milk per day. It had a cost of Rs.18,000/-The doctor who has consulted the cow was issued a letter and it was also given to the respondent. But the claim of complainant was rejected by the respondent by a letter dated 13/8/07. This is deficiency in service of respondent. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter averments are that the respondent admits that they have issued a live stock cattle insurance for black and white with white star cow along with three other cows belonged to the complainant in favour of the complainant for a period 30/4/07 to 29/4/10. The sum assured for Rs.18,000/- is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. As per condition No.11 it is clearly stated that in the event of a permanent total disability of animals covered in this policy claim shall not be entertained unless the ear tag is surrendered to the company. In the event of loss of ear tag it is the responsibility of the insured to give immediate notice to the company and get the animal retagged. The ear tag allotted to the insured cow for identification is 6616/VII100600. The age of the cow at the time of issuing policy was six years. The identification numbers of the other milk cows are 6620, 6613 and 6618. The complainant intimated the matter on 6/7/07 regarding the ailment of the animal reportedly tagged with ear tag No.6616 and there after the respondent received the claim form and post mortem certificate regarding the death of cow on 7/7/07. On verification it was observed that out of the five cows owned of the complainant only four were covered by insurance. Therefore there is a selection of risk as far as insurance is concerned. The complainant claimed that the ear tag imbedded on the animal loosened out. The complainant had not informed the same and arranged for retag. The complainant is not entitled to get any amount. Hence dismiss the complaint.
3. Points for consideration are that :
1) Whether there was any deficiency in service from respondent ?
2) If so reliefs and costs ?
4. The evidence adduced consists of Exhibits P1 to P4 and Exhibits R1 to R5.
5. The complainant is living out of the income derived from the rearing of cows. It is his case that as per the ‘Pasugramam’ scheme of Milk Development Department he has purchased four cows and insured the same with the respondent. One of the cows bearing tag No.100600/6616 was died on 7/7/07 due to illness. According to complainant this was intimated to respondent and claim form also given for getting compensation. But the respondent rejected the claim of complainant. The respondent in their version stated that as per condition No.11 of the policy ’in the event of a permanent total disability of animals covered under this policy claim shall not be entertained unless the ear tag is surrendered’. In this case the complainant did not surrender ear tag and in the event of loss of ear tag he can very well get the animal retagged. It is also not done. So respondent would say that they have rightly repudiated the claim of complainant.
6. The complainant produced Exhibits P1 to P4 documents in support of his case. He has not adduced any oral evidence. It is the case that he has intimated the death of cow to respondent in time and also intimated the ailment of cow to the respondent. As per Exhibit P1 he has intimated the ailment of cow to respondent before the death of the cow. In this letter the conditions of the cow and the loss of ear tag are also mentioned. Exhibit P2 is the copy of postal receipt alleging that this is the receipt copy showing the intimation of the dispatch of Exhibit P1 to respondent. It should be believed because no objection is raised by the respondent company.
7. It is the case of respondent that as per Clause 11 of the policy in the event of a permanent total disability of animals the claim shall not be entertained unless the ear tag is surrendered. It is also the condition that in the event of loss of ear tag it should be intimated to the respondent and get the animal retagged. As per records it can be seen that the cow was not retagged. As per the copy of a letter produced by complainant it can be seen that the animal had lost its ear tag due to struggling which was recovered and kept in safe custody of the owner. Ext.R2 is the copy of certificate issued by the veterinary surgeon to the respondent dated 6/7/07. But it is to be noted that there is no case to complainant that the tag is surrendered to respondent. The original of this letter is not produced by respondent and the complainant failed to bring original from respondent before the Forum.
8. The respondent produced Exhibits R1 to R5 documents out of which Exhibit R5 is the copy of repudiation letter. As per this letter the respondent rejected the claim on the basis of two reasons. According to them out of the five cows owned by complainant only four were covered by insurance. So there is selection of risk as far as insurance is concerned. So it is the contention of respondent that since five cows are there they cannot identify the deceased cow whether it was insured or not. But in the certificate of veterinary surgeon the ear tag number is mentioned. The number is also there in Exhibit R4, the policy. In the claim form also the tag number is mentioned. The certificate of veterinary surgeon is very important and there is mentioned the number of tag. So it is clear that the deceased cow was insured with the respondent.
9. One of the reason for repudiating the claim of complainant is that the ear tag imbedded on the animal loosened out and complainant did not arrange for retagging. The Exhibit P1 would show the condition of cow at the time of death and the retagging is not at all possible at that time. The certificate of veterinary surgeon supports the claim of complainant also. The failure on the part of complainant to surrender the tag is not sufficient to dismiss the claim of complainant. There is deficiency in service on the part of respondent in repudiating the claim of complainant.
10.The complainant claims Rs.18,000/- the sum insured for the deceased cow. There is no evidence adduced by complainant to show the quantity of milk provided by the deceased cow for every day. He has stated that 16 ltrs. of milk was available per day. But there is no evidence at all to prove the same and there is also no evidence to show the market value of the cow at that time. Since the cow is insured for Rs.18,000/- the complainant is not entitled to get that amount. Since there is no evidence adduced on this aspect the Forum is inclined to grant Rs10,000/- as the value of cow.
11. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondent is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- with costs Rs.500/- within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 10th day of July 2012.
Sd/-
Padmini Sudheesh, President
Sd/-
M.S.Sasidharan, Member
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibit
Ext. P1 Copy of letter
Ext. P2 Copy of postal receipt
Ext. P3 Copy of claim form
Ext. P4 Lr. dt. 13/8/2007
Respondent’s Exhibits
Ext.R1 Livestock Claim form
Ext.R2 Veterinary certificate
Ext.R3 Lr. from Rajitha Anilkumar
Ext.R4 Policy with condition
Ext.R5 Lr. dt. 13/8/07
Id/-
President
