Kerala

Idukki

CC/44/2019

Saly Antony - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Co ltd - Opp.Party(s)

17 Oct 2022

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 19.2.2019

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the  17^th   day of  October,  2022

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR                   PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P.                               MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S.                            MEMBER

CC NO.44/2019

Between

Complainant                                            :   Sali, W/o. Antony,

                                                                    Kombanayil House,

                                                                    Kallarkootty P.O.,

                                                                    Mankadavu – 685 662.     

       (By Adv: Shiji Joseph)

And

Opposite Parties                                       : 1. The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,

                                                                      Munnar Branch.

                                                                       Represented by its Branch Manager.

                                                                  2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,

                                                                      Muvattupuzha.

                                                                      Represented by its Divisional Manager.

           (By Adv: Thomas Sebastian)

                                                   Addl. OP 3.  Coordinator,

                                                                       Ksheera Jyothi Insurance,

                                                                      Thodupuzha, Idukki.

 

O R D E R

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

1. Allegations raised by complainant are as under :

 

          Complainant insured her cow under the Ksheera Jyothi Insurance Scheme through Dairy Development Department.  Complainant’s cow was insured with opposite parties vide policy No.060104F0271.  However, the ear tag was lost and the same was replaced by Dairy Development Department.  The change of the ear tag was informed to the opposite party on 11.1.2018.   The new ear tag number was 1671.  Complainant’s cow died on 1/3/2018 due to uterus prolapse.  At the time of death, cow was 8 ½ months pregnant.  The matter was reported to opposite parties and the veterinary doctor did postmortem and took photographs of the cow.  The doctor, who did postmortem, has issued postmortem certificate and valuation certificate and the doctor has certified that the  cow  was  worth  Rs.50,000/- at the time of death.  After the postmortem, claim                                                                                                            (cont….2)

• 2  -

was preferred to opposite parties through the Dairy Development Department on 3.5.2018.  However, till this date, the claim was not granted.  Non-payment of the claim for one year caused considerable pain and mental agony to complainant. Opposite  parties are liable to pay Rs.50,000/- as claim with 18% interest and insured is also entitled for Rs.10,000/- compensation.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 1.3.2018, the day cow died and continuously thereafter in Mankadavu kara in Vellathooval Village within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  The reliefs claimed in the complaint are valued at one lakh and no fees is payable in this complaint. Hence she prayed for the following reliefs :

 (a) Opposite parties may be ordered to pay Rs.50,000/- towards the value of cow with 12% interest thereon from 26.11.2018. 

(b) Opposite parties may be asked to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of complaint.

(c) such other reliefs that deemed just and equitable also may be granted.

 

2. Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed joint written version.  Their contentions are as follows:

         

All the averments in complaint except those that are specifically admitted hereunder are false and hence denied by the opposite parties.  Complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case.   Averments made in paragraph 3 and 4 of the complaint except that are specifically admitted are not true and hence denied by them.  Allegation that complainant’s cow was insured with opposite parties vide policy No.060104F0271 is not correct and denied by them.   They have not issued the policy having No.060104F0271 to insure complainant’s cow.  The ear tag with ear tag No.1671 was not delivered by them.  Complainant’s cow was not insured with them.  They have not received any claim in respect of complainant’s cow.  Death of complainant’s cow was not reported to them.  They have not insured complainant’s cow under the Ksheera Jyothi Insurance Scheme through Dairy Development Department.  Hence they deny the existence of policy to cover the complainant’s cow.  Averments made in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of complaint except those that are specifically admitted hereunder are not true and hence denied by them.  They have not received postmortem report.  Since complainant’s cow was not insured with them, they are not liable to pay Rs.50,000/- with 18% interest and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation to complainant.  So there is no deficiency in service on the part of these opposite parties.  Therefore, complainant is not entitled to get Rs.50,000/- with 12% interest as insurance claim and Rs.10,000/- as  of compensation from these opposite parties.  They may be permitted to file additional written statement if necessary.  Hence they prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

 

3. In the light of above contentions, complainant sought for inpleading co-ordinator, Ksheera Jyothi Insurance, Thodupuzha as additional 3^rd opposite party and the application was allowed.  Accordingly, additional 3^rd opposite party, Deputy Director,                                                                                                                  (cont….3)

-  3  -

District Dairy Development Department, filed written version in the following lines.

           

Complainant had joined in Ksheera Jyothi Insurance scheme through Highrange Ksheera Sangham and her premium for membership in the above scheme was deposited with the company.  Premia of all such members were given to New India Assurance Company.  Company will make up loss happened to such insured cow for low yield or death of such cows.  Under the above scheme, as per UIC No.060104F0271 with Tag No.3932011, complainant’s cow was insured with the above insurance company.  As per letter No.D 716/17 dated 11.1.2018 of 3^rd opposite party, loss of Tag and also retagging the cow with Tag No.1671 was reported to the company. Permission was also sought for ratifying the change of tag.  Claim form for death of complainant’s cow was given to the company on 14.3.2018 from the office of 3^rd opposite party. There was no deficiency in service on the part of 3^rd opposite party.  All documents relating to the insurance claim were given to the company in time.

 

Above scheme was introduced for the backward sections of milk producers with the co-operation of Milk Producers and Milk Societies in the district.  Premia were collected from such milk producers.  Aim of the scheme was to protect the interest of milk producers and their family and yielding cows.  It was not a government scheme.  It is only a service done along with other schemes of the department. 

 

4.  Evidence on the part of complainant is only the copy of following documents which were marked as Exts.P1 to P5.  No oral evidence from both sides.  Opposite parties 1 and 2 have not produced any documents.  In  the light of denial of issuance of policy for the cow of complainant by 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties and as per application from the side of complainant, this Commission directed 3^rd opposite party to produce copy of concerned insurance policy, 3^rd opposite party filed the same which is marked as Exts.P6. 

1. Ext.P1 – Postmortem report of cow dated 3.3.2018 issued by the veterinary doctor.

2. Ext.P2 – Certificate dated nil of the above doctor regarding the market value of cow with tag number and reason for death.

3. Ext.P3 (series) – Photos of dead cow (5 Nos.)

4. Ext.P4 – Letter dated 21.12.2017 of Dairy Development Officer, Adimaly addressed to Dy. Director of the department stating the name of complainant as the beneficiary of the scheme with UIC No.060104F0271 and also the loss tag issued and retagging of the cow with Tag No.1671 and requested him to give ratification for the same.

5. Ext.P5 – Letter dated 11.1.2018 of additional 3^rd opposite party addressed to AMEX Insurance Brokers (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vennala, Kochi – 28, requesting to give ratification for the retagging of the cow of complainant with Tag No.1671 as against old Tag No.3932011 along with the name of another milk producer for same purpose.    

             (cont..4)

-  4  -

6. Ext.P6 – Copy of the Cattle Insurance Policy No.76100247160400000009 for the period from 7.3.2017 to 6.3.2018.

 

          We have carefully examined the rival contentions of both sides and perused copy of documents produced from the side of complainant.  On a perusal of the same, following points arise for consideration :

1)  Whether the cow was insured with 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties through 3^rd opposite party ?

2)  Whether denial of concerned policy by opposite parties 1 and 2 is sustainable ?

3)  Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?

4)  Reliefs and costs ?

 

5.  Point Nos.1 to 3 are considered together :

 

          Complainant and additional 3^rd opposite party had contended that cow in question was insured with opposite parties 1 and 2.  3^rd opposite party admits that concerned insurance policy was taken in the name of complainant and others. He  also admits the change of ear tag due to loss of earlier one and that matter was informed to the Insurance Broking  Company as per Ext.P5, for ratification of change of ear tag.  It is also stated by 3^rd opposite party that he had filed claim with insurance company on 14.3.2018 .  Opposite parties 1 and 2 have denied the policy and change of ear tag etc..  Mere evasive denial is not sufficient.  They have never raised a contention that no other policy was also issued to complainant. They have filed affidavit stating that policy No.060104F0271 was issued to complainant and that complainant’s cow was not insured with them, which is found to be against the true state of affairs in the light of Ext.P6.  So, we are of the considered view that denial of issuance of policy by opposite parties 1 and 2 are unsustainable. Opposite parties 1 and 2 have not come forward to give evidence on oath.  There is no reason to disbelieve the version of additional 3^rd opposite part and the documents produced by him and the complainant.  The very purpose of taking insurance is to protect from unforeseen circumstances which is defeated by non-payment of claim amount and evasive denial of issuance of policy by opposite parties 1 and 2.  This is a very serious lapse on their part.  On going through Ext.P6, it is seen that complainant’s 2 cows with Tag Nos.3932025 and 3932011 respectively were insured for Rs.40,000/- each.  These are shown in serial No.76 and 77 of Ext.P6.  Policy seems to be a group policy including cows of other persons under the scheme.  Dead cow is shown in Sl. No.77.  Total premium collected under the policy is shown as Rs.15,53,105/- with GST.  From Ext.P6, it is proved beyond doubt that cow in question was insured with opposite parties 1 and 2 and the death  occurred during the period of policy.  As such complainant is entitled to insured amount of Rs.40,000/- as against the claim of Rs.50,000/- raised by complainant.  Non-payment of claim is clearly deficiency in                                                                                                                 (cont…5)

• 5  -

service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2.  It is seen that there is no deficiency in service on the part of additional 3^rd opposite party.  Hence he is not responsible for the lapse of opposite parties 1 and 2.  He is only a coordinator under the scheme.  In these circumstances, we are of the concrete view that opposite parties 1 and 2 are responsible for the deficiency in service by not paying the insured amount in time for which complainant is to be sufficiently compensated.  Hence we find that complaint is maintainable against opposite parties 1 and 2 and the complainant is entitled to reliefs.  So Point Nos.1 to 3 are decided in favour of complainant.

 

6.  Point No.4:

 

          In the light of our discussions and findings on Point Nos.1 to 3, we are of the considered view that complainant is entitled to the insured amount of Rs.40,000/- for the dead cow along with simple interest at the rate of 10 % per annum from the date of complaint, that is, 19.2.2019, till realization.  Hence we direct opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay the above amounts to complainant within 30 days of receipt of this order.

 

          Eventhough complainant claimed compensation of Rs.10,000/- for her mental agony and pain in the complaint in the relief portion, it is not seen claimed.  However, considering the 3^rd prayer and facts of the case and also in exercise of the power conferred under Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, we direct opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) to complainant, within the above period. 

 

          Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to complainant within the above period. 

 

          In the result, complaint is allowed in part as follows :

 

(a)  Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.40,000/- to the complainant  being the insured amount with simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of complaint till realization.  They are liable to pay insured amount and interest ordered to be paid thereon from 19.2.2019 along with compensation and same rate of interest thereon from the expiry of 30 days shown above and costs ordered. 

 

(b) They are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand)  to the complainant for the loss and injury suffered by complainant.

 

(c) Litigation costs of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) to be paid to complainant, by opposite parties 1 and 2.

                                                                                                              (cont….6)

-  6  -

If opposite parties 1 and 2  fail to comply with this order within 30 days of receipt of the same, complainant is entitled to recover the same as ordered above.

 

          Extra copies filed by parties shall be taken back by them without delay.

 

                    Pronounced by this Commission on this the  17^th   day of October, 2022

                                                                                                    Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

                                                                                                    Sd/-

               SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                                        Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

 

 

 APPENDIX

Depositions :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 –  Postmortem report of cow dated 3.3.2018 issued by the veterinary doctor.

Ext.P2 –  Certificate dated nil of the above doctor regarding the market value of cow

                with tag number and reason for death.

Ext.P3 –  Photo of dead cow (5 Nos.)

Ext.P4 – Letter dated 21.12.2017 of Dairy Development Officer, Adimaly addressed to

               Dy. Director of the department stating the name of complainant as the

               beneficiary of the scheme with UIC No.060104F0271 and also the loss tag

     issued and retagging of the cow with Tag No.1671 and requested him to give

     rectification for the same.

Ext.P5 – Letter dated 11.1.2018 of additional 3^rd opposite party addressed to AMEX

               Insurance Brokers (India) Ltd., Vennala, Kochi – 28, requesting to give

               notification for the retagging of the cow of complainant with Tag No.1671 as

     against old Tag No.3932011 along with the name of another milk producer for

     same purpose.

Ext.P6 – Copy of the Cattle Insurance Policy No.76100247160400000009 for the period

     from 7.3.2017 to 6.3.2018.

On the side of the Opposite Party :  Nil.

                                                                                          Forwarded by Order,

 

                                                                                      ASSISTANT REGISTRAR