By. Smt. Bindu. R, President:

            This complaint is filed by Baby. V. K, Vadakkumkara House, Valeri Post, Wayanad against New India Assurance Company Limited, Represented by Its Divisional Manager, Thiruvananthapuram alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.

            2.  The Complainant alleges that the Complainant had purchased a milking cow by availing a loan for Rs.80,000/- from WDCB, Kallodi Branch which was insured for an amount of Rs.75,000/-.  This cow was insured after medical check-up of the Veterinary Doctor.  The amount of installments towards the loan was remitting in the SBI.  The Doctor who examined the cow had suggested that the cow shall not carry again. The Complainant was taking the yield of milk from the cow for four months after the purchase.  Since there was no chance for taking further yield under circumstances state above, the doctor advised to sell the cow and the claim form was duly submitted to the Company.  Subsequently the Company doctor examined the cow and advised to remove the tag and given permission to sell the cow.  Accordingly the tag was removed and the cow was sold for Rs.15,000/-.  The details and address of the person who bought the cow along with the tag was intimated to the Company.  After a lapse of 3 months the Opposite Party Company asked for a photo and the tag of the cow.  Only photo available with the Complainant was the photo taken at the time of purchase of the cow.  The claim was repudiated by the Company for want of the above details.  Aggrieved by the action of the Company the Complainant approached this Commission seeking for issuing direction to the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs.80,000/- along with other reliefs.

            3.  Upon notice from the Commission the Opposite Party entered into appearance and filed their version.  Opposite Party contented in their version that the sum insured was Rs.75,000/-.  As per the policy condition if the cow is properly identified on production of ear tag, the liability of the Opposite Party in case of permanent disability will be 75% of the sum insured and Rs.20,000/- also to be deducted towards meat value.  If there is no ear tag, surrendered, as per policy condition the Opposite Party is not liable to pay based on “No tag No claim” condition.  In the instant case the Opposite Party appointed an Expert (Veterinary Surgeon) who has submitted his report in which the meat value of the cow is Rs.20,000/-.  Even though the answering Opposite Party had asked the Complainant to produce photos at the time of PTD (Permanent Total Disability) with visible ear tag and date wise treatment details of the insured cow, the Complainant had not produced any documents and therefore the Company repudiated the claim and hence there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Party.

            4.  The Complainant had produced Ext.A1 to A8 documents and the Complainant was examined as PW1.  The Opposite Party had produced Ext.B1 and B2 documents which are also marked.  Ext.A1 are the two bills, Ext.A2 is the Certificate of the Doctor, Ext.A3 is the Insurance Policy and Ext.A4 is the Letter sent to the Veterinary Officer, Ext.A5 is the Postal Receipt, Ext.A6 is the Photo of the cow, Ext.A7 are the copies of letters from the Opposite Party and Ext.A8 is a copy of letter from the District Veterinary Officer.  Ext.B1 produced from the side of Opposite Party is a Cattle Insurance Policy document and Ext.B2 is a Letter from the Opposite Party.

            5.  The main points to be analyzed in this case to reach into the merit of the complaint is :-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of Opposite Party?
2. Compensation and costs to be awarded to the Complainant?

6.  Points No.1:- On going through the complaint and also on making a probe into the evidence adduced from either side it can be seen that the Complainant had purchased a milking cow which had given yield for a few months after its purchase.  There was no scope for a subsequent carriage and therefore the Complainant decided to sell the cow as per the direction of the Veterinary Surgeon.  There is nothing to disbelieve this statement of the Complainant.  It can also be seen that a letter bearing No.DAHO/WYD/21/2021 ie Ext.A2 was sent from the District Veterinary Officer to the Director of Veterinary Department in which it is specifically mentioned that the number of tag is 420043/924436.  The District Veterinary Officer has also recommended for granting the insurance claim of the said cow.  The Complainant had produced the photograph of the cow having its tag in its ear having No.420043/924436 as Ext.A6 series.  It can also be seen that the Complainant had made a lot of communication with the Opposite Party as is revealed from the postal acknowledgment receipts. The stand of the Insurance Company that the insured amount shall not be released to the Complainant for want of production of medical records etc cannot be accepted on the basis of the evidences produced by the Complainant and also on the basis of the deposition given by the Complainant in box.  Hence this Commission found that the Complainant has very clearly established his case and therefore Point No.1 is found in his favour. Since Point No.1 is found in favour of the Complainant Point No.2 is decided accordingly.

1. The Opposite Party shall pay the Complainant an amount of Rs.65,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five Thousand Only) ie after deducting the cost of the meat value received by the Complainant.
2.   The Opposite Party shall pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards costs.

Needless to say that the above said amounts are to be paid by the Opposite Party to the Complainant within one month of receipt of the copy of this Order, otherwise the Complainant will be entitled to get 8% interest for the amounts awarded except for costs from the date of order till date of realization.

Hence the complaint is party allowed.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 21^st day of November 2023.

Date of Filing:-28.09.2022.

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:-

PW1.              Baby. V. K.                                                               

Witness for the Opposite Party:-

                        Nil.     

Exhibits for the Complainant:-

A1.                  Copy of Bill.

A2.                  Copy of Certificate issued by Veterinary Surgeon.   Dt:21.10.2021.

A3.                  Copy of Insurance Policy.

A4.                  Copy of Letter.

A5(Series).   Postal Receipts (3 Numbers).

A6(Series).   Photos (3 Numbers).

A7.                  Copy of Letter.                                                                    Dt:21.04.2022

A8.                  Copy of Letter from District Veterinary Officer.       Dt:30.06.2022

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:-

B1.                  Copy of Cattle Insurance Policy.                                               

B2.                  Letter.                                                                        Dt:21.04.2022

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

/True Copy/

                                                                                                                    sd/-

                                                                                             ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

                                                                                                  CDRC, WAYANAD.

Kv/-