By Sri. A.S. Subhagan,  Member:-

          This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

          2. Facts of the case in brief:-  The Complainant  is a member of the Varadoor  Milk  Producing Co-operative Society.  Being a member of the said  Milk Producing Co-operative Society,  the Complainant had insured  her cow for Rs.60,000/-  under the “Milma Passumithra Scheme”,  with the 1^st  Opposite Party through the 2^nd Opposite Party for which an amount of Rs.1,026/-  was remitted  as insurance premium.  Dr.  Musthafa Kotta was the person who had checked up the Cow and had issued certificate for  the purpose of joining in insurance.  The doctor had done all activities including fixing of ear tag and filling proposal for insurance which was submitted  from Varadoor Society.  Dr. Musthafa Kotta had fixed ear tag bearing  No.42008/832750 on the cow but instead of recording this ear tag number he had recorded it as 420008/832750 in the insurance proposal form.  It was a mistake happened from the  part of  the Doctor.  But  on 01.01.2018  the cow was affected udder swelling and as a consequence, a huge loss was happened to the Complainant.  Hence the Complainant submitted all the papers required for availing insurance claim through the 2^nd  Opposite Party to the 1^st  Opposite Party.  Afterwards the  representatives of the 1^st  Opposite Party inquired the matter and they were convinced the facts.  But on 23.05.2018  the repudiation of the  claim was known from the 1^st  Opposite Party.  The Complainant enquired this matter from the Doctor,  Musthafa Kotta who told  that the difference in ear tag number was caused due to a mistake from his part and hence he had informed  to admit the insurance claim.

          3. The Complainant had taken the insurance policy from the 1^st  Opposite Party through the 2^nd  Opposite Party.  The 1^st  Opposite Party repudiated the claim due to the mistake happened  from the part of the 3^rd  Opposite party which was informed by the  3^rd Opposite Party.  Therefore,  the Complainant has  the right to get insurance claim.  Hence the Complainant has approached this Commission with this complaint praying as follows:

1. To direct the  1^st  Opposite Party  to pay Rs.60,000/-  as insurance claim to the Complainant,
2. To direct the 1^st  Opposite Party to allow interest @ 12% per annum on the claim amount from the date of this complaint,
3. To allow Rs.50,000/-  as compensation to the Complainant,
4. To allow  Rs.5,000/-  as expenses to the Complainant and
5. To allow Rs.2,500/-  as cost of this complaint to the Complainant.

4.  The Commission registered a case and notices were served on the Opposite

Parties for appearance.  The Opposite Parties entered  appearance and versions were filed.  Proof affidavit was  filed by the Complainant’s son on behalf of the Complainant.  Ext.A1 to A11 were filed  and marked from his part  and he was  examined as PW1.  The Opposite  Parties had no evidence and the complaint was finally heard on 03.06.2022.

          5. Brief  contents of version filed by the  1^st  Opposite Party:-  The cow bearing  ear tag No.42008/832750 was insured  with the 1^st  Opposite party.  As per the recommendation letter of the 2^nd  Opposite Party,  the ear tag number of the cow is 42008/832750.  The cow bearing  ear tag No.420008/832750 belonged  to the complainant was not insured with the  1^st  Opposite Party.  As per the claim form and  Veterinary certificate,  Valuation certificate etc, the ear tag number of the cow was mentioned as 420008/832750.  The claim was submitted by the Complainant with respect to the cow bearing ear tag number 420008/832750.  Since this cow was not insured,  the 1^st  Opposite Party repudiated the claim.  So the Complainant is not  entitled to get relief as prayed for.

          6. Brief contents of version filed by the 2^nd  Opposite party:-  The 2^nd  Opposite Party has acted only as an agent for taking insurance policy by the Complainant from the 1^st  Opposite Party.  So,  if the Complainant is entitled  to  get any  insurance claim,  it is liable to be paid by the  1^st  Opposite Party alone.  The 2^nd  Opposite Party has not done any deficiency in service.  So the complaint may be dismissed with cost.

          7. Brief contents of version filed by the  3^rd  Opposite Party:-  One digit in the ear tag of the   cow was mistakenly recorded at the  time  of writing the policy proposal.  The number  420008 which was mistakenly written was only a common number.  The exact identification number of the cow is 832750. No Change  is seen in this identification number of the cow.  The cow under reference has been identified by the Doctor and representative of the insurance company.  The class, breed, age, colour etc have not been used and verified by the insurance company for identifying and processing of the claim.

          8.  The Commission perused the complaint, versions, affidavit, documents marked and evidence adduced.  On perusal of the same the Commission raised the following points for consideration.

          (1)  Whether there has been any deficiency in service or unfair trade

                 practice from the Opposite parties?

          (2)  If so, whether the Complainant is entitled to get insurance claim as

                per policy conditions?

          (3)  Whether the Complainant is entitled to get compensation for

                deficiency in service/ unfair trade practice?

          (4)  Whether the Complainant is entitled to get expenses and cost of the

                 complaint as prayed for?

          9.  Point No.1:-  It is the fact that the Complainant’s cow was insured with the first Opposite Party through the second Opposite Party and the second Opposite Party admits that the cow of the Complainant was insured with the first Opposite Party.  The third Opposite Party who was the Veterinary Doctor at the time of making proposal of the insurance policy admits that the difference in ear tag number of the cow was caused due to an error from his part.  But the first Opposite Party repudiated the claim pointing out that the cow of the Complainant with the ear tag was not insured with the first Opposite Party.  So the Complainant claims to get the insurance claim as the difference in ear tag number was caused due to the mistake occurred from the part of the third Opposite Party as the third Opposite Party had admitted his mistake.  The veterinary Surgeon has pointed out that the number 420008 which was mistakenly written was only a common number and the exact ear tag number of the cow is 832750.  The first Opposite Party has not considered this fact.  Moreover, the insurance company has not considered the class, breed, age and colour of the cow to identify it.  If the insurance company had acted in good faith, the first Opposite party should not repudiate the claim of the Complainant.  We find from the facts and evidences of the case that instead of processing the claim application in good faith the first Opposite Party was  thirsty to find unsustaining reasons and loopholes to escape from their liability by repudiating the claim.  This is unfair trade practice/deficiency in service from the part of the first Opposite Party.  So we find that the first Opposite Party is duty bound  to disburse the claim amount as per the policy conditions as stated below, realizing the factual error happened from the part of the Veterinary Surgeon, Dr. Mustafa Kotta.  In Ext.A1 it is recorded that “Ønc-amb coXn-bn-ep-ff hÔ-y-Xbpw  ]m Npc-¯p-hm-\p-ff Ignhv ]qÀ®-ambpw \in-¡epw kw`-hn-¡p-I-bm-sW-¦n C³jpÀ sNbvX XpI-bpsS 50 iX-am-\tam aXn¸v hne-bpsS 50 iX-am-\tam GXmWv Ipd-sh-¦n B kwJy  Cd¨n hne IW-¡n-se-Sp¯v \ÂIp-¶-XmWv”.        So, here the lesser  amount compared to the  insured amount and the  estimated value of the cow is Rs.30,000/-.  But it is  not clear that whether this amount shall be given as claim amount, treating  it is the meat value of the cow or whether this amount shall be given as claim amount  after deducting the  meat value of the cow from this Rs.30,000/-.   But  the  Veterinary Certificate issued on 15.02.2018 (Ext.A2) shows the  meat value of the cow as Rs.13,000/-.  So we find  that the meat value of the cow is shown so as to deduct it from 50% of the policy amount to be given as insurance claim.  So the Complainant has the right to get an insurance claim of Rs.17,000/-  (60,000 x 50/100 – 13000 = 17,000/-).  So Point No.1 is proved in favour of the Complainant.

          10. Point No.2, 3, & 4:- As point No.1 is proved in favour of the Complainant point No.2 to 4 are also in favour of the Complainant but the rate of interest, amount of compensation and expenses prayed for are seen exorbitant.

          In the result the complaint is partly allowed and the first Opposite Party is directed:-

1. To disburse the eligible claim amount of Rs.17,000/- as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy,

(2)    To pay interest @ 8% per annum on the claim amount with effect

from the date of this complaint,

2. To pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as compensation for

unfair trade practice/deficiency in service,

          (4)     To pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) as expenses and

          (5) To pay Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) as

                   cost of this complaint.

          The above amounts together with the claim amount shall be paid to the Complainant within one month from the date of this Order failing which, the Complainant can realize the amount together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of this Order by due process of law.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 22^nd   day of  June 2022.

Date of filing:27.11.2018.

                                                                   PRESIDENT:  Sd/-

                                                                   MEMBER   :   Sd/-

                                                                   MEMBER   :   Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:

PW1.           Ancin K Paul.                  Agriculture.                    

Witness for the Opposite Party:

Nil.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1.    Proposal Cum Veterinary Certificate.             dt:22.06.2017.

A2.    Copy of Veterinary Certificate.                     

A3.    Copy of Description of Animal Claimed for.  dt:20.02.2018.

A4.    Copy of Description of Animal.                    dt:20.02.2018.

A5.    Copy of Cattle Insurance Policy.        

A6.    Copy of Letter.                                            dt:20.02.2018.

A7.    Copy of Letter.                                            dt:04.07.2018.

A8.    Copy of Letter.                                            dt:04.07.2018.

A9.    Copy of Letter.                                            dt:23.05.2018.

A10.  Copy of Letter.                                            dt:04.10.2018.

A11.   Authorisation Letter.                                     dt:19.05.2022.                

Exhibit for the Opposite Party:

Nil.