BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. A.T.MUNNOLI, B.A., LLB., President,<br /> 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member,<br /> 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member,<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> <br /> Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.61/2010<br /> Order dated this the 30th day of August 2010<br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT/S <br /> <br /> Smt.Sanna Bettamma <br /> W/o Ningaiah, R/o Maradipura, <br /> Dudda Hobli, Mandya Taluk, <br /> Mandya District.<br /> <br /> (Sri.G.K.Shivakumar., Advocate)<br /> <br /> -Vs-<br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY/S <br /> 1.The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., No.4/12, Naveen Complex, 1st Floor, Hebbal Main Road, Metagalli, Mysore.<br /> 2.The Assistant Director (A.H.V.H.) Department of Veterinary, District Veterinary Hospital, Mandya.<br /> (O.P.1 & 2 - EXPARTE)<br /> <br /> Date of complaint 03.06.2010<br /> Date of service of notice to OPs 16.06.2010<br /> Date of order 30.08.2010<br /> Total Period 2 Months 14 days<br /> Result The complaint is partly allowed. The 1st Opposite party is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the Complainant the insurance amount, within a month from the date of the order, failing which the amount will carry interest at the rate of 10% p.a.<br /> The 1st Opposite party also pay a sum of Rs.500/- to the Complainant towards the cost of the proceedings.<br /> <br /> Sri.A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1.The Complainant has filed the complaint against the Opposite parties under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in insurance service on the part of the Opposite party.<br /> 2.In spite of due service of the notice, Opposite parties have remained exparte.<br /> 3.In support of her claim, the Complainant has filed her affidavit and producing certain documents.<br /> 4.We have heard the arguments and perused the records.<br /> 5.Now the point for our consideration is whether the Complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the 1st Opposite party and she is entitled to the relief sought?<br /> 6.Our finding on the point is partly in affirmative, for the following.<br /> REASONS<br /> 7.The Complainant claims that she had insured her cow to the 1st Opposite party through the 2nd Opposite party for the period 15.04.2008 to 14.04.2011. The Complainant has paid the premium of Rs.2,550/- and the policy amount is Rs.25,000/-. During the policy period on 03.06.2009, the insured cow died. Thereafter, along with relevant documents, claim petition was submitted to the 1st Opposite party through the 2nd Opposite party, but so far, the 1st Opposite party has not paid the amount. These facts, allegedly in complaint are stated by the Complainant in her affidavit. To substantiate the same, copy of the documents are produced. The Opposite parties have remained exparte. The claim made by the Complainant has remained unchallenged. Prior to filing the complaint, the Complainant had sent notice and had called upon to pay the policy amount. That notice was also not replied. The claim petition also has remained unattended. Under the circumstances, we have no reason to dis-believe the case on put-forth by the Complainant. Accordingly, we pass the following order:<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> The complaint is partly allowed. The 1st Opposite party is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the Complainant the insurance amount, within a month from the date of the order, failing which the amount will carry interest at the rate of 10% p.a.<br /> <br /> The 1st Opposite party also pay a sum of Rs.500/- to the Complainant towards the cost of the proceedings.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 30th day of August 2010).<br /> <br /> (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)<br /> <br /> <br />