IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 31st day of December, 2015
Filed on 26.06.2015
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.198/2015
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. Prushothaman 1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Moolayil Veliyil Sarada Shopping Complex
CMC – 26, Cherthala Mullackal, Alappuzha
Alappuzha (By Adv. T.S. Suresh)
2. Dr. Salini, Veterinary Doctor
Arthunkal Veterinary Hospital
Cherthala
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant was the owner of the cow tag No.85098/101500 and he insured the cow with the opposite party for the period from 29.3.2014 to 28.3.2015 under the “Gosuraksha Scheme.” On 21.3.2015 the said cow died and he informed the matter to the first opposite party and thereafter to the second opposite party. But second opposite party issued the certificate only on 28.3.2015 and the date of death is shown as 27.3.2015. Since the next day was Sunday the application was submitted only on 31.3.2015. But the first opposite party did not pay the insurance amount stating that the insurance period expired on 28.3.2015 and the application was give only on 31.3.2015. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties the complaint is filed.
3. The version of the first opposite party is as follows:-
There is no deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant. The first opposite party settled the claim on 3.8.2015 and paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant.
4. The version of the 2nd opposite party is as follows:-
The complaint reported the death on 21.3.2015 is not correct. On getting knowledge about the death of the cow, the second opposite party inspected the cow and issued the certificate on 28.3.2015. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the second opposite party.
5. The complainant was examined as PW1. One document produced marked as Ext.A1. Two witnesses were examined as PW2 and PW3. The second opposite party is examined as RW1. Documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B3.
6. The points came up for considerations are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief and cost?
5. It is an admitted fact that complainant had insured the cow with the first opposite party. According to the complainant the cow died on 21.3.2015 and he informed the death to the second opposite party, but she issued the certificate dated 27.3.2015 and the complainant received it on 28.3.2015. In order to substantiate the allegations of the complainant he produced 2 witnesses and they were examined as PW2 and PW3. The complainant and the witnesses categorically stated that the cow died on 21.3.2015. Bu the second opposite party totally denied the allegation of the complainant. According the second opposite party on 27.3.2015 the complainant reported the death of the cow and she inspected the cow and issued the certificate dated 27.3.2015 to the complainant on 28.3.2015. In order to substantiate her allegation, she produced the copy of the register and which marked as Ext.B1 and the copy of the certificate dated 27.3.2015 which is marked as Ext.B2. The second opposite party herself is the custodian of the Ext.B1 Register, hence the genuineness of the said document is doubtful. So we are not going to rely on that document. At the same time it is pertinent to note that Ext.B2 was dated 27.3.2015. There is no document to prove the allegation of the complainant that he informed the death of the cow on 21.3.2015. PW2 and PW3 are the interested persons. Hence their deposition also cannot be taken as an evidence. In the absence of any such documentary evidence it is difficult to believe that the death of the cow was on 21.3.2015 itself. The first opposite party filed version stating that they have paid the policy amount on 3.8.2015. Complainant filed the application on 31.3.2015. The policy is also an admitted fact. But the first opposite party failed to pay the insured amount till the complainant filed the complaint before this Forum. The complaint was filed by the complainant on 28.6.2015. The insured amount was paid on 3.8.2015. The delay in paying the insured amount to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party. For the delay committed from their part they have to pay compensation to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is allowed partly. The first opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1500/- (Rupees one thousand and five hundred only towards compensation to the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order. There is no order as to costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and
pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of December, 2015. Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Purushothaman (Witness)
PW2 - Prasanth (Witness)
PW3 - A.V. Joseph (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of the certificate of insurance Gosureksha Scheme
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Dr. Salini (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Copy of the Register
Ext.B2 - Copy of the certificate dated 27.3.2015
Ext.B3 - Copy of the settlement intimation voucher and other documents
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
