BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

FORUM, VELLORE DISTRICT AT VELLORE.

PRESENT:   THIRU. A. SAMPATH, B.A., B.L.,                PRESIDENT        

                                          TMT. G. MALARVIZHI, B.E.                             MEMBER – I

                                      THIRU. K. DHAYALAMURTHI,B.SC.    MEMBER – II

CC.46 / 2005

WEDNESDAY THE 14^th DAY OF JULY 2010.                               

S. Megavarman,

S/o. Late A. Subramaniyan,

No.2, Bazaar Street,

Pernambut,

Gudiyatham Taluk,

Vellore District. .                                                                                                    …  Complainant.

       - Vs –

M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited,

No.17, G.P.M. Street,

Ambapuram,

Gudiyatham,

Vellore District.                                                                                         … Opposite party.   

. . . .

              This petition coming on for final hearing before us on 29.6..2010, in the presence of Thiru. S.Senthilazhagan, Advocate for the complainant and Thiru. K.M. Boopathi, Advocate for the opposite party and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following:

O R D E R

            Pronounced by Thiru. A. Sampath, President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore District.

1.         The brief facts of the case of the complainant is as follows:   

              The complainant herein is a business man and proprietor of Sri. Lakshmi Rice, oil and Gule Mill.  He is an milch cow owner and insurer.      The opposite party is the United India Insurance Company Limited having Branch Office at No.17, G.P.M. Street, Ambapuram, Gudiyatham.    He has purchased  a milch cow and insured the cow to the opposite party on 3.6.02.  period on 3.6.2002 to midnight of 2.6.03 and 2^nd policy period on 3.6.03 to midnight of 2.6.04, 3^rd policy period on 3.6.04 to midnight of 2.6.05, 4^th policy period on 3.6.05 to midnight of 2.6.06.  The opposite party fixed sum insured of Rs.9500/- and the complainant paid net premium of Rs.381/- plus service tax of Rs.39/-.   Total of Rs.420/- on 24.5.05.    The said milch cow was died on 18.7.05 and then, the said Doctor V. Kothadaraman was seen the complainant had given all the particulars to insurance company, branch office, Gudiyatham.  In the mean time the said opposite party has given a cheque of Rs.9000/- dt. 1.9.05 and the complainant received the cheque of Rs.9000/- and enchased.    The opposite party must give of Rs.9500/- as per policy mentioned in insurance policy but the opposite partly has given Rs.9000/- only.  After enchased of Rs.9000/- on 22.10.05, he has sent a notice to the A.A.O United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Brach Office, Guidyatham but the company not replied the same.  Again on 21.11.05 the complainant sent a notice to the same.     The Senior Branch Officer replied the same on 2.12.05 stated as the said claim was settled for Rs.9000/- in full and final.  The value arrived by the veterinarian doctor is award Rs.9000/- only.  The value arrived by the veterinarian doctor award of Rs.9000/- is null and void.  The above said facts are amount to compensation for the loss and injury suffered due to negligence of the opposite party under section 2 (1)  (d) of the C.P.Act 1986.   He prayed for directing the opposite party to return the balance of Rs.500/- as per policy mentioned in insurance policy of Rs.9500/- and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards the mental agony, loss and injury suffered by the complainant like as consumer due to negligence of the opposite party. 

2.         The averments in the counter filed by the  opposite party is as follows:

            The opposite party denies each and every allegation made in the petition as the same is false.  The allegation made in the petition that he has insured the cow with the opposite party for sum of Rs.9500/- and paid the premium are all true.  But it is false to state that the opposite party has paid Rs.9000/- towards the death of cow instead of Rs.9500/- which is not correct and the complainant has suffered mental agony because of the said act of the opposite party are all hereby specifically denied as the same is false.    The complainant has given consent to receive Rs.9000/- and on the basis of the said consent alone the opposite party has paid sum of  Rs.9000/- to the complainant and the same was received by the complainant on 5.9.05 without any protest.  The complainant having received the amount without any protest he is estoped from questioning the same.    The animal died only due to the negligence of the complainant who failed to give proper treatment to the animal.  Further more the complainant made use of the skin of the animal by selling the same for the huge sum.  The value of the skin will have to be deducted in the total loss.   Pleased to dismiss the petition with cost.  

3.         Now the points for consideration are:

a)  Whether there is any deficiency in service  on 

                 the part of the opposite party?

            b)  Whether the complainant is entitled to the

                reliefs asked for?.

4.         Ex.A1 to ExA8 were marked on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 was marked on the side of the opposite party.  Proof affidavit of the complainant and Proof affidavit of the opposite party have been filed.  No oral evidence let in by either side. 

5.         POINT NO. : a)

            It is admitted facts of the parties that the complainant insured the cow to the opposite party for a sum of Rs.9500/-  on 3.6.02 for a period from 3.6.02 to midnight of 2.6.03 and again insured for the period 3.6.03 to midnight of 2.6.04.  The complainant again insured his cow for the period from 3.6.04 to midnight of 2.6.05 and again he insured for the period from 3.6.05 to midnight of 2.6.06.   While the said milch cow was died on 18.7.05 and the opposite party has given a cheque of Rs.9000/- for the said insurance. 

6.         The complainant contented that as per the policy condition mentioned in the insurance policy, the opposite party must have given Rs.9500/- but the opposite party has given only Rs.9000/-.  Therefore the complainant is suffered the loss and mental agony due to the negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

7.         The opposite party contended that the complainant has given consent to receive Rs.9000/- and on the basis of the said consent alone the opposite party has paid sum of Rs.9000./- to the complainant and the same was received by the complainant on 5.9.05 without any protest.   Therefore there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

8.         It is admitted facts of the parties that the complainant’s milch cow insured for a sum of Rs.9500/- to the opposite party.  After received the particulars about the death of milch cow from the complainant, the opposite party has given only Rs.9000/-  to the complainant for the said insurance policy.  After receiving the cheque of Rs.9000/- on 1.7.05 the complainant sent two letters Ex.A4 dt. 22.10.05 and Ex.A6, dt.21.11.05 stating that asking the reason for the non disburse of the remaining amount of Rs.500/-.  The opposite party sent a letter dt. 2.12.05 stating that the said insurance claim was settled for Rs.9000/- in full and final.  The value arrived by the veterinarian Doctor is award Rs.9000/- only and as per the recommendation of the Doctor the said claim is settled.    It is admittedly facts that as per the policy the insured amount of Rs.9500/- fixed by the opposite party.  Based on the said insured amount the complainant had paid the premium of Rs.381/- plus service tax of Rs.39/- (Total of Rs.420) on 24.5.05.    As per the policy condition if the milch cow during the policy period the opposite party should given the said policy amount of Rs.9500/-.   But there is no documents on the side of the opposite parties, regarding the contention of the opposite party that  the complainant has given consent to receive Rs.9000/- only.   After receiving the said amount on 1.9.05 the complainant immediately asking the reason for non disburse the balance amount of Rs.500/- through the letters Ex.A4 and Ex.A6.   As per the policy condition the opposite party is bound to settled the insured amount but the opposite party has given only Rs.9000/- to the complainant.   Without any proof the reason stated for the non disburse balance amount of Rs.500/- is not acceptable.   As per the policy condition the complainant is entitled  the balance amount of Rs.500/-.   Therefore, we have come to the conclusion that the attitude of the opposite party herein would have certainly caused loss and mental agony due to the negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  Hence we answer this point (a) in favour of the complainant. 

9.         POINT NO : (b)

            In view of our findings on point (a),as per the insurance policy the complainant herein is entitled the balance insured amount of Rs.500/- and also for a sum of Rs.500/- towards compensation for mental agony and in view of the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.    Hence this point (b) is also accordingly.

10.       In  the result, this complaint is allowed partly.  The opposite party is directed to  pay a sum of Rs.500/- for balance insured amount as per the policy condition and to pay a sum of Rs.500/-  as compensation for loss and mental agony and Rs.200/- as cost of this complaint.  The amount shall be payable within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the amounts shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of default, to till the date of payment.

Dictated to the Steno-typist and transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by the President, in Open Forum, this the 14^th  day of July  2010.

MEMBER-I                                   MEMBER-II                                                    PRESIDENT.

List of Documents:

Complainant’s Exhibits:

Ex.A1 – 24.5.05        - X-copy of Insurance Policy.

Ex.A2-  24.5.05         - X-copy of Receipt.

Ex.A3-  1.9.05           - X-copy of cheque Rs.9000/- given by the opp paty along with

                                   The disbursement voucher.

Ex.A4-  22.10.05      - X-copy of notice sent by the complainant.

Ex.A5- 24.10.05       - Ack. Card.

Ex.A6- 21.11.05       - X-copy of notice sent to the complainant to the opp party.

Ex.A7-            --          - Ack. Card.

Ex.A8- 2.12.05          - reply letter. 

Opposite party’s Exhibits:

Ex.B1- 1/9/05            - voucher of Disbursement claim.

MEMBER-I                               MEMBER-II                                                     PRESIDENT.