D.O.F:16/11/2021

                                                                                                  D.O.O:28/10/2022

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD

CC.No.208/2021

Dated this, the 28^th day of October 2022

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                         :PRESIDENT

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                            : MEMBER

Vaikath Krishnan, aged 66 years

S/o Kunhambu, Punathil House

Near Palichon Temple, Thaikadappuram (P.O)

Nileshwar Village, Kasaragod (Dist)                                : Complainant

(Adv: V.V. Raveendran)

                                                                        And

1. The regional Manager

The Oriental Insurance Co-Ltd, Regional Office

Muthoot Tower

First Floor, M.G Road, Cochin 682036

(Adv: A.K.V. Balakrishnan)

                                                                                                :  Opposite Parties

2. The Director of Animal Husbandry

Directorate of Animal Husbandry

Vikas Bhavan, Thiruvanathapuram

Trivandrum – 695033

(Adv: Dist. Govt. Pleader)

ORDER

SRI.KRISHNAN.K  :PRESIDENT

     The case of the complainant is short is that he is an agriculturist.  who owns a cow obtained under special livestock package of Animal Husbandry Department.  The cow is insured as per policy for the period for 23/02/2020 to 22/09/2021,  Which carriers a Tag No: 39007/3846.  On 09/02/2021 cow died due to pulmonary congestion and edema.  Informed the same to Opposite party No:1.  The Opposite party No:1 did not reply.  Opposite party No: 1repudiated the claim on the ground that colour of cow is different.  Thus there is deficiency and negligence therefore and compensation and insurance benefits and cost of the litigation is claimed.

2.     The Opposite party No:1filed written version.  Main contention are, they admit, information of death of a cow.  At the time of insurance colour of cow was black.  Tag is produced.  But postmortem certificate showed colour of cow as black and white and therefore denied the liability.

3.     The Opposite party No:2 filed written version.  They admitted the insurance for one cow and death of one cow.  But rejected the claim due to slight change in the colour of cow insured and dead.  Detailed enquiry was conducted by district Animal Husbandry and report shows that the dead cow and insured cow was one and the same.  Insurance company did not pay insurance benefits though copy of enquiry report is dispatched to Opposite party No:1.

4.    The complainant filed chief affidavit and was cross examined as Pw1, marked Ext A1 to A8 documents.  Ext A1 is receipt of premium for insurance policy, Ext A2 is the photocopy of insurance, Ext A3 is claim petition, Ext A4 is the letter issued by veterinary surgeon, Ext A5 is the postmortem certificate, Ext A6 is claim form, Ext A7 notice, Ext A8 copy of communication.

5.  The Opposite party No:1 produced Ext B1 to B5.  Ext B1 is the policy in the case, Ext B2 is the copy of letter by district veterinary surgeon.  Ext B3 is the postmortem certificate, Ext A4 valuation certificate, Ext B5 is photograph.

            In view of the contention raised by both parties and documents produced evidence made available following points raised for consideration.

1. Whether insured cow of complainant with tagNo.39007/38946 is the very same cow reported to be dead as claimed?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to insurance benefits for death of his cow?
3. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
4. Whether complainant is entitled for compensation? If so for what reliefs?

6.The case of the complainant is that opposite party repudiated the insurance claim without a valid reason.He produced Ext A1 to A8 documents.He reiterated his case, that he submitted the claim with necessary requirements and it reached Opposite party No:1 and there is negligence on the part in not allowing the claim stating that colour of cow is different from mentioned in the policy.The Opposite party No:1 cross examined Pw1.In cross examination he deposed that he insured a black coloured cow, it is dead, and colour of photo may be due to the lying position of cow while photograph is taken.There is no effective cross examination by Opposite party No:1 except denying liability relying on noting of cow in the postmortem certificate.There is nothing to disbelieve the claim of complainant that his cow having its tag and cow insured by him is dead.Opposite party No:1 has no case that complainant was having another cow of white colour uninsured or tag produced relates to that cow.Report filed by officials proved that insured cow and cow died are one and the same.The Opposite party No:1 not raised any objections to the report relating to identify of cow insured and reported as dead.

7.The Commission is satisfied that there is legal and acceptable evidence to show that cow died, really covered by insurance as per Ext A1 and rejection of insurance is not supported by any legal or acceptable evidence.Evidence is credit worthy and believable.Hence the commission is of the view that he succeeded in adducing satisfactory evidence to prove that the particular cow died is covered by insurance and finding on the point is in favour of the complainant.

8.Point No: 2 to 4 are considered together for convenience.The complainant proved his claim and met all procedural requirements for processing the claim, submitted the same to insurance company through Opposite party No:2.Considering the documentary evidence and oral evidence, Commission is of the considered opinion that the claim is genuine and there is sheer negligence and authoritarian negative attitude and approach in rejecting valid insurance raising technical defects though claim submitted is as per law, cannot be accepted. There is serious deficiency in service of Opposite party No:1 and hence Opposite party No:1 is liable for the reliefs claimed in the complaint.The Opposite Party No:2 exonerated from liability.

9.The complainant claimed Rs. 50,000/- as insurance benefits complainant is entitled for the same.Hence claim of Rs. 50,000/- is allowed.The complainant claimed Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and tension due to unauthorized denial of insurance benefits and repudiation is found unjustified. Since complainant is suffered financial loss, Commission fixes the compensation amount Rs. 25,000/- payable by Opposite party No: 1 and also eligible for cost of the litigation.

In the result complaint is allowed in part Opposite party No:1 is directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) towards insurance benefits and Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and also pay Rs. 5000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of the litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the order.

Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-

MEMBERMEMBERPRESIDENT

Exhibits

A1- Receipt for the payment

A2- Photocopy of Policy Schedule

A3- Claim petition

A4- Valuation certificate

A5- Copy of postmortem report of cow

A6- Copy of cattle claim

A7- Lawyer Notice

A8- Reply notice sent by second OP

B1- Policy schedule

B2- The copy of letter by district Veterinary Surgeon

B3- Postmortem report

B4- Valuation Certificate

B5- Photograph

Witness Examined

Pw1- Vaikath Krishnan

Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-

MEMBERMEMBERPRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                                    Assistant Registrar

Ps/