BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

C.C.No.274/2012   Filed on 14.08.2012

ORDER DATED: 30.06.2021

Complainant:

(by Adv. K. Satheesh Kumar)

Opposite parties:

(by Adv. R. Jagadish Kumar)

This C.C having been heard on 23.02.2021, the commission on 30.06.2021 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR, MEMBER:

            The complainant is a progressive farmer engaged in Dairy farming adopting modern methods of dairy cattle production and management.  As a security measure make the enterprise an insured activity and in response to the assurance offered by the opposite parties six of his milch cows were covered by the insurance policy with the opposite parties on payment of premium prescribed for the same.  The milch cows those insured with the opposite parties detailed in the policy document (a) Sl.No.4, CB, Milch cow, E.T.No.917038, colour tan, sum insured Rs.20,000/- rendered reproductive status affected/sterile, milk yield affected leading to milk production ‘Nil’ and in all amounting to permanent and total disability (PTD).  The Veterinary Surgeon rendering ‘veterinary aid’ to the farm on inspection of the animal found that the animal is unproductive, not economical to maintain and any amount of veterinary aid and management would be helpful to bring back the animal to normalcy/fertile and productive.  He found that the animal has lost its value as an economic producer and is a fit case to process the ‘PTD’ claim and he issued a letter dated 27.12.2011 addressed to the 1^st opposite party and a claim to that effect was also processed.  The complainant was retaining/maintaining the animal for the inspection/appraisal of the animal by the opposite parties.  The opposite parties’ representative has visited the farm inspected the animal to his satisfaction endorsed the findings of the veterinarian and has instructed the complaint to remove the ear tag bearing the no.917038 and to keep it safe for production before the opposite party/insurance company when called for.  There upon at that point of time he has instructed the complainant to dispose off the cow and assured him that he would be entitled to get the sum insured after deducting salvage value (meat value) of the animal.  The complainant is still retaining the ear tag under safe custody after verification by the opposite parties duly awaiting payment from the opposite party/insurance company.  While so, the 1^st opposite party vide his letter dated 11.04.2012 informed the complainant saying that the insurance claim cannot be processed further as the ear tag was missing.  The above contention of the opposite party is surprising and is against facts in as much as the representative of the opposite party himself has inspected and verified the ear tag intact at the time of his visit to the farm and further that he only advised the complainant to remove the ear tag and keep it under safe custody.  A legal notice dated 12.06.2012 was served and duly been received by them which remained unanswered.  The acts on the part of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which is auctionable as per the provisions of the Act.

            Opposite parties filed version contenting that it is true that six animals were insured with the opposite party insurance company.  Claim in respect of two animals against whom claim was preferred by the complainant was settled.  The present cow is the third cow in respect of which claim is made by the complainant.  This cow had no ear tag.  Based on investigation report that the cow had no ear tag claim was repudiated.  The basic principle is that ‘no tag, no claim’.  This aspect has been upheld by various courts including the Hon’ble Apex Court.  As soon as the claim was lodged a Veterinary Doctor Harikrishnan, a Govt. of Kerala official was sent to examine the veracity of the claim.  On physical examination he has found that the ear tag of the animal was not there.  Since ear tag is only a means to identify the insured animal, he could not identify the animal and he has recommended to the opposite party to repudiate the claim, and on the basis of his report dated 01.04.2012 the claim was repudiated.

            Since the ear tag is not there the complainant cannot make any claim.  The amount claimed in the consumer case is imaginary and the same has no legal basis.  There is no deficiency at all from the side of opposite party.  Hence they prayed to dismiss the case with compensatory costs.

Issues to be considered are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost?

Issues (1) and (2)

            We perused relevant documents on record.  Complainant filed chief affidavit and documents.  Ext.P1 to P5 marked on the side of the complainant.  Opposite parties filed chief affidavit and documents.  But the opposite parties were not present and not marked the documents.    Opposite parties were not examined.  Also the complainant was not cross examined by opposite parties.  Ext.P1 is the copy of insurance policy in the name of the complainant and shows that insurance taken from 10.08.2009 to 09.08.2012.  Ext.P3 is the copy of the letter of veterinary surgeon dated 27.12.2011 states that the cow belongs to the complainant is not conceiving and yield is nil and also recommends that it admit for PTD claim.  Ext.P3 clearly shows the policy number and there is no ambiguity regarding which cow is claimed under PTD claim since only one cow was claimed for PTD claim at that particular point of time.  Complainant stated that Ext.P4 is the letter of repudiation issued by the administrative officer of opposite parties.  The reason stated for repudiation is not true since at the time of inspection there was ear tag at the ear of the cow.  The complainant has produced the ear tag of the cow before the commission.  But the opposite parties had not taken steps to prove their case.  In Ext.P4 states that “Doctor reported that the ear tag of the animal was not found on the ear of the animal at the time of inspection.” But the complainant has produced the ear tag of the cow before the commission after filing the chief affidavit by opposite parties.   So many postings were given they could not mark any documents in support of their evidence.  In Ext.P1 clearly states that cattle type – Milch cows, identification 917038 and the tag is produced before the commission.

            On the basis of the above observations, it becomes clear that issue of ear tag is no more a valid ground for repudiation.  The complainant stated that the representative of the opposite parties has visited the farm to inspect the animal to his satisfaction endorsed the findings of the veterinarian and has instructed to remove the ear tag and to keep it safe for production before the insurance company when called for.  No contradictory evidence produced by the opposite parties.  In Ext.P1 sum insured for Rs.20,000/-.  In Ext.P3 Doctor stated that cow is not conceiving and yield is Nil.  In the above discussions we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

In the result, the complaint is allowed.  We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand) as the claim amount and pay Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand) as compensation and pay Rs.2,500/-(Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 30^thday of June, 2021.

SL

C.C. No. 274/2012

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

5. COURT EXHIBIT

       Sd/-

                                                                                                                                                                   PRESIDENT