Date of filing:02-04-2013
Date of Disposal: 17-02-2014
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: ANANTHAPURAMU
PRESENT:- Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A.,B.L., President (FAC).
Smt.M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Monday, the 17th day of February, 2014
C.C.NO.21/2013
Between:
M.Sankar Reddy
S/o M.Ramakrishna Reddy
D.Gangampalli Village
Gorantla Mandal
Ananthapuramu District. …. Complainant
Vs.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Divisional Manager,
11-170-B, 1st floor, Meda Mansion,
Subash Road,
Ananthapuramu. … Opposite party
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri K.Chenna Reddy, Advocate for the complainant and Sri B.Satyanarayana Reddy, Advocate for the opposite party and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments on both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, President (FAC):- This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party claiming a sum of Rs.28,200/- with interest towards the sum assured, Rs.95,400/- towards loss of earnings, Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the complaint totaling a sum of Rs.1,75,600/-.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that :- The complainant is a permanent resident of D.Gangampalli Village, Gorantla Mandal, Ananthapuramu District living by cultivation. The complainant purchased a cow for a sum of Rs.28,200/- under Pasukranthi Pathakam sponsored by Animal Husbandry Department in the year 2011 with the financial assistance of Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Pedaballi Branch. The said cow was insured with the opposite party for a sum of Rs.28,200/- by paying a premium of Rs.2,312/- under policy No.051000/47/11/01/00000218, which is valid from 18-08-2011 to 17-08-2014 vide receipt No.051000/81/11/0000001110 dt.30-08-2011 and the cow was tagged with a Token No.90144000104431. The complainant was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/-per month by selling the milk getting from the cow.
3. Subsequently the cow died on 26-09-2011 at about 3.30 P.M. and the reason for the death was not known to the complainant and the postmortem was conducted by the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Veterinary Dispensary, Gorantala on the same day and issued Death Intimation of the cattle. After the death of the cow, the complainant claimed for compensation from the opposite party by furnishing all the particulars of the insurance.
4. Later the complainant was shocked to learn from the opposite party by a letter dt.08-11-2012 that his claim was repudiated on the ground that the cow insured was black but the colour of the cow claimed/dead is black and white. Hence, the opposite party presumed that the cow insured and the cow died was not one and the same. Hence, they expressed their inability to entertain the claim. Further, the complainant submits that the opposite party has not mentioned the colour of the cow of the complainant bearing Tag No. 90144000104431 either in the Health Certificate or in the Insurance Policy. The complainant is an unemployed person and he purchased the cow with the financial assistance from a Bank and he has to repay the loan with interest. While that is so, as the cow died, though the complainant has lost his livelihood, the complainant was paying installments to the Bank towards the loan by borrowing money from outside. The complainant further submits that the opposite party has taken a frivolous objection only to evade its liability to pay compensation to the complainant. The complainant submits that if his claim was not repudiated by the opposite party and if he was compensated he would have bought another cow and could have earned his livelihood by earning a sum of Rs.200/- per day.
5. The complainant claims a sum of Rs.28,200/- with interest towards the sum assured and Rs.95,400/- towards loss of earnings from 01-12-2011 to 28-03-2013 and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
6. The opposite party filed a counter and submits that the complainant purchased a cow and insured the same with the opposite party for a sum of Rs.28,200/- by paying premium of Rs.2,312/- vide policy No. 051000/47/11/01/00000218 valid from 18-08-2011 to 17-08-2014 subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The opposite party submits that in fact at the time of insurance to the cow belonging to the complainant, the opposite party has taken a Health Certificate from the concerned Veterinary Doctor of Gorantla. In the health certificate the concerned Veterinary Doctor did not mention some important columns like colour of the cow. In this connection the opposite party addressed a letter dt.09-09-2011 to the Veterinary Doctor and requested him to inform the colour of the cow to enable them to incorporate the same in the policy by endorsing the same and further requested that the insurance company is not liable for any claim if reported for the said animal until the endorsement is made in the policy. In that connection, the said Veterinary Doctor of Gorantla has given a reply and clarified that the colour of the cow is black vide his letter dt.16-09-0213. Accordingly, the opposite party has given endorsement to that effect and the same was mentioned and the said endorsement has been communicated to the complainant also. This material fact was intentionally and deliberately suppressed by the complainant and approached the Forum with unclean hands. Further the alleged income of Rs.200/- per day is also false and denied by the opposite party.
7. The opposite party further states that the alleged paras 3 & 4 of the complaint show that the cow died on 26-09-0211 at about 3.30 P.M. and he claimed compensation from the opposite party by furnishing all the particulars of the insurance after the death of the cow. But in fact, after the death intimation from the complainant, the opposite party obtained relevant documents and after thorough scrutiny of the available documents, the opposite party found that the cow insured was black but the colour of cow died/claimed is black and white. Hence the cow insured and the cow died was not one and the same. So the opposite party expressed their inability to entertain the claim of the complainant. Further the allegation made by the complainant that the opposite party has not mentioned the colour of the cow of the complainant bearing Tag No.90144000104431 either in the health certificate or in the insurance policy is false and deny the same. In fact, after clarification letter received from the concerned Veterinary Doctor, the opposite party herein has issued separate endorsement related to the said policy and got mentioned the colour of the cow as black. The concerned Veterinary Doctor also clarified and got mentioned the colour of the cow as black in his letter dt.16-09-2013 received by the opposite party. Further the opposite party submits that the complainant’s version that his claim is reasonable as the cow insured and the cow died was one and the same and the opposite party is trying to evade the liability on the flimsy grounds is a deliberate lie. The opposite party further submits that the alleged loss of earning of Rs.95,400/- is also false and there is no proof for the same. Hence, the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation as requested by the complainant.
8. Basing on the above pleadings, the points that arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
2. To what relief?
9. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complaint has filed evidence on affidavit on his behalf and marked Ex.A1 to A6 documents. The opposite party has filed evidence on affidavit on its behalf and marked Ex.B1 to B4 documents.
10. POINT NO.1:- The counsel for the complainant filed written arguments stating that the complainant has purchased the cow for a sum of Rs.28,200/- under Pasukranthi Pathakam sponsored by Animal Husbandry Department in the year 2011 with the financial assistance of Andrha Pragathi Grameena Bank, Pedaballi Branch, Ananthapuramu District
11. The said cow was insured for Rs.28,200/- by paying premium of Rs.2,312/- under policy No. 051000/47/11/01/00000218, which is valid from 18-08-2011 to 17-08-2014. Further, the counsel argued that the complainant was earning Rs.6,000/- per month by selling Milk getting from the cow. Subsequently, when the cow died on 26-09-2011 at about 3.30 P.M. Later the postmortem was conducted by the Assistant Veterinary Surgeon, Veterinary Dispensary, Gorantla on the same day. Ex.A3 is intimation of cow’s death and Ex.A5 are photos of the dead cow.
12. Further the counsel for the complainant argued that after the complainant claimed the compensation from the opposite party by furnishing all the particulars of the insurance of the dead cow after a lapse of one year he was shocked to learn from the opposite party’s letter dt.08-11-2012 that the claim was repudiated as the cow insured was black but the colour of the cow died/claimed is black and white and the opposite party/Insurance Company presumed that the cow insured and the cow died was not one and the same. Therefore, they expressed their inability to entertain the claim of the complainant, which is marked as Ex.A4.
13. The counsel for the complainant argued that Ex.A6 is the letter dt.05-07-2013 issued by the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Veterinary Dispensary, Gorantla mentioning the Tag No.90144000104431 by clearly mentioning that the colour of the cow as black and white. Hence the version of the complainant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the cow died is the one, which was insured but not a different one as expressed by the opposite party. Hence, it is the liability of the opposite party to compensate the loss alongwith loss of earnings of the complainant.
14. The counsel for the opposite party argued that the colour of the cow mentioned in the policy is black and the cow which died is black and white in colour as per the photographs submitted by the complainant, which is marked as Ex.A5. The counsel for the opposite party argued that in the health certificate issued by the Veterinary Doctor, the column colour of the cow was kept blank and in that connection the opposite party addressed a letter dt.09-09-2011 to the Veterinary Doctor and requested him to inform the colour of the cow to enable the opposite party to incorporate the same in the policy by endorsement and further requested that the insurance company will not be liable for any claim if reported for the said animal until the said endorsement is made in the policy. In this connection, the said Veterinary Doctor has given a reply and clarified that the colour of the cow is black and policy No. 051000/47/11/01/00000218 vide letter received dt.16-09-2013. Basing on the letter addressed by the Veterinary Doctor, the opposite party herein endorsed to that effect and mentioned the colour of the cow as black belonging to the petitioner under the said policy.
15. The counsel for the opposite party argued that basing on the letter addressed by the Veterinary Doctor, the colour was mentioned as black in the said policy and the cow which is dead and claimed for is black and white in colour as per Ex.A5. Hence the opposite party has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant and further argued that they are not liable to pay any compensation towards the sum assured or towards the loss of earnings of the complainant.
16. After hearing the arguments and perusing the documents filed by the complainant and the opposite party, the fact remains that in the health certificate there is no mention of the colour of the cow as argued by the opposite party’s counsel. The Certificate issued by the Veterinary Doctor marked as Ex.A2. Further the policy document, which is marked as Ex.A1 the colour of the cow is kept blank. Another document Ex.B2 letter written by the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon dt.14-09-2011 clearly establishes that the colour of the cow is mentioned as black by the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon. Another document Ex.B3, which is addressed to Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Pedaballi endorsing with tag No.90144000104431 belongs to Sri N.Shankar Reddy is herewith included in the scope of the policy as black and another document Ex.B4 which is the claim form in which the description of the colour of the cow which died mentioned as black by the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Gorantla. All the above documents clearly show that the colour of the cow is black, which is insured by the opposite party. Hence the version of complainant cannot be considered. The complainant’s document Ex.A6, which is issued by the same Veterinary Assistant Surgeon also cannot be considered as the said letter is issued on 05-07-2013 i.e. after a lapse of nearly 22 months. In Ex.A1 which is the cattle insurance policy, two persons have insured their cows. And the present complainant’s cow’s colour is kept blank, whereas the second person by name Venkataramudu’s cow’s colour is mentioned as black and white. As there is no mention of the colour of the complainant’s cow and subsequent letter of the opposite party, which is marked as Ex.B1 clearly establishes that they have insisted the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon to mention the colour of the cow in order to incorporate the same in the policy by endorsing the same. Further the opposite party made a note that they are not liable for any claim if reported for the said animal until the endorsement is passed in the policy.
17. In view of the above observations, the version of the complainant cannot be considered and the opposite party has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.
18. POINT NO.2: In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum this the 17th day of February, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT(FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAM
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 - Cattle Insurance Policy No.051000/47/11/01/00000218 issued by the opposite
Party.
Ex.A2 - Health Certificate relating to cow issued by the opposite party.
Ex.A3 - Death Intimation of Cattle submitted by the complainant to the opposite party.
Ex.A4 - Original Repudiation letter dt.08-11-2012 issued by the opposite party to the
complainant.
Ex.A5 - Photographs relating to dead cow.
Ex.A6 - Letter addressed by the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Gorantla to the opposite party
dt.05-07-2013.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE EPARTY
Ex.B1 – Letter addressed by the opposite party dt.09-09-0211 to the Veterinary Assistant
Surgeon, Gorantala.
Ex.B2 – Letter addressed by the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon dt.14-09-2011 to the
Opposite party.
Ex.B3 – Photo copy of endorsement issued by the opposite party.
Ex.B4 – Veterinary Certificate relating to cow issued by the Veterinary Assistant
Surgeon, Veterinary Dispensary, Gorantla.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT(FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAM
Typed JPNN
