CC Filed on 27.02.2009<br /> Disposed on 24.08.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 24th day of August 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.<br /> <br /> Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.<br /> Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.<br /> ---<br /> <br /> Consumer Complaint No. 13/2009<br /> <br /> Between:<br /> <br /> <br /> Smt. Laxmidevamma,<br /> W/o. Venkateshappa,<br /> Aleri Village,<br /> Sugatur Hobli,<br /> Kolar Taluk.<br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. C.R. Krishna Murthy and Others ) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,<br /> P.B. No. 24, 1st Floor, Doddapet,<br /> Bagalur Mansion,<br /> Kolar – 563 101.<br /> <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. B. Kumar and Others ) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. The Manager,<br /> Pragathi Gramin Bank,<br /> Sugatur Branch Office,<br /> Kolar Taluk,<br /> Kolar District.<br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. N. Sampath Kumar) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDERS<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the OP No.1 to pay Rs.20,000/- towards cattle insurance claim with costs and interest etc.,<br /> <br /> 2. It is alleged in the complaint that by taking loan from OP.2 on 11.11.2006, the complainant purchased C.B. Cow for Rs.20,000/- and that the said cow was insured with OP.1 and the policy was issued in favour of OP.2 and the current policy bears No. 071501/47/07/01/00001381 effective from 01.12.2007 to 30.11.2008 by paying the required premium. Further that the complainant paid the entire loan and interest to OP.2 and in the mean time the said cow fell ill in the month of June 2008 and inspite of treatment by veterinary doctor, it died on 24.06.2008. Further that the claim was made through OP.2, but OP.1 failed to settle the claim stating that the identity of cow was not established and that the said reason stated by OP.1 is false and untenable. Therefore the complainant has filed the present complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. OP.1 appeared and contested the case. The issue of policy of insurance in respect of cow alleged by complainant is admitted by OP.1. It is contended that the OP.2 - Bank Manager and the complainant have colluded each other and that the loan transaction entered into between them is sham and colourable and that they created the story of death of cow to falsely claim insurance amount. Further it is contended that perusal of HC and photo of dead animal shows that the colour and identification of insured animal differs from the cow insured. Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 4. OP.2 has not filed any version, but the Counsel for the OP.2 orally submitted he would support the claim of the complainant.<br /> <br /> 5. The parties filed affidavits. The complainant filed documents. <br /> <br /> 6. We heard the submissions of parties and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 7. The following points arise for our consideration:<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved that the cattle insured <br /> had died on 24.06.2008 during the coverage period of<br /> insurance policy?<br /> <br /> 2. If point No.1 is held in affirmative to which reliefs the <br /> complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> 3. To what order?<br /> <br /> 8. After considering the records and the submissions of the parties our findings are as follows:<br /> Point No.1: The complainant has produced Veterinary Certificate and postmortem report and also the Treatment Certificate issued by Veterinary Doctor, Sugatur. These documents show that the cow belonging to complainant fell ill and inspite of treatment by Veterinary Doctor it died on 24.06.2008 at 4.00 p.m. The Veterinary Doctor noticed that the cow which died had Tag No. 63077. The Doctor has also noted that the cow which died was C.B. Cow and of HF species and it was having black and large white patches. The same cow was insured and the same ear tag was affixed at the time of insurance. Therefore there can be no doubt that the cow insured had died. <br /> <br /> OP.1 contended that the transaction stated by complainant is a sham and colourable transaction and no cow was inexistence at the time of issuing policy. Except the mere say of OP.1 there is no other evidence or circumstance to believe such defence. It cannot be assumed that without verification of the existence of cow OP.1 issued the insurance policy for cattle insurance. Therefore we reject the defence of OP.1. For the above reasons we hold point No.1 in affirmative. <br /> <br /> Point No.2: The cow was worth Rs.20,000/-. The insurance policy was issued for the said amount. The cow died when the insurance policy was in-force. Hence the complainant is entitled to Rs.20,000/- from OP.1. Hence Point No.2 is held in affirmative. <br /> <br /> Point No.3: Hence we pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed with costs of Rs.1,000/-. OP.1 is directed to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. on the said amount from 01.10.2008 till the date of payment, within 45 days from the date of this order. <br /> <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 24th day of August 2009.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />