IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday, the 30th day of January, 2009
Filed on 17.3.2008
Present
1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K.Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
CC/No. 57/2008
between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Sri. Aliyarukunju The Branch Manager
Koolikkunnel Veedu National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Vandanam P.O., Alappuzha Alappuzha Branch, North of
(By Adv. A. Pookunju) Iron Bridge, Head P.O.
Alappuzha
(By Adv. T.S. Suresh)
O R D E R
SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:- The complainant is a farmer. He ekes out his living by rearing cows and selling their milk. The complainant on 12th September, 2009 availed insurance for one of his milch cows from the opposite party for an amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only). When matters stood thus, the said cow was afflicted with an ailment as to its udder. The complainant consulted various veterinary doctors. The authorized doctor opined that the disease was incurable and the animal was totally disabled. Notwithstanding continuous treatment and proper maintenance, the milk yielding considerably scaled down. Within a short span of time, the lactation came to a halt. The complainant sustained huge loss. The insurance policy was in force at this material time. On the basis of the policy, the complainant lodged a claim with the opposite party. As per the instruction of the opposite party, the complainant lodged a claim with the opposite party. As per the instruction of the opposite party, the complainant sold the cow for an amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only). Thereafter, on untenable grounds, the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant. Aggrieved by this, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
2. Notice was sent. The opposite party turned up and filed version. According to the opposite party, the complainant suppressed material facts before this Forum. The cow has not totally disabled. The story that milk yielding was stopped to the hilt was untrue as well. On receiving the claim application from the complainant, the opposite party instantaneously caused the cow in issue to be examined by a qualified doctor. The doctor submitted a detailed report to the effect that the decline in milk yielding is an impermanent event, and if the milch cow is properly maintained, milk production will be recouped. Thus the said cow was not totally disabled nor was its disease virtually incurable, the opposite party contends. Further the opposite party contends that, the complainant sold his cow on his own. The opposite party never advised him to sell the cow. What is more, the said cow was sold for an amount of Rs.11,000/- (Rupees eleven thousand only) as against Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as averred by the complainant. As a matter of fact there is no financial loss on the part of the complainant. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party as well. The complainant is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party, opposite party asserts.
3. The complainant’s evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant himself as PWl, and the documents Exts. Al to A5 were marked. On the side of the opposite party, the medical report was produced and marked as Ext. B1. However, the opposite party was no keen on mounting to the witness box.
4. Keeping in view the contentions advanced by the parties, the questions come up before us are:-
(l) whether the said cow was totally disabled?
(2) whether the complainant is entitled to any relief sought for?
5. The issuance of insurance or its validity ay the material time is not disputed. What is in dispute is as to whether the animal was disabled or not. The complainant produced the doctor's certificate to affirm that the cow was disabled. In the same way, the opposite party also produced medical report to assert that the milk production could have been recovered on proper maintained and treatment. However, it is note worthy that both the parties did not make it a point to examine the concerned doctors to bring home their points. In this back drop, we hold that we are hesitant to take the plea of both the parties as to this in their face value. However the complainant sold his cow. Now the immediate short question comes up for consideration is in what circumstance and for what price the cow in question was sold. As we have already observed, the circumstance under which the cow was sold remains unproved. As to the amount for which the cow was sold both parties take incongruent plea. The complainant argues that he sold the cow for an amount of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only). The opposite party fervently challenges the same. It appears that barring bare statements, the complainant has taken no further step even to examine the person to whom he sold his cow. More over no evidence worth a paper is forth coming to show the record of treatment the cow was subjected to. We are of the view that the complaint must fail.
For the forgoing discussion made herein above, we hold that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The parties shall bear their own cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of January, 2009.
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Smt. N.Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Aliyarukunju (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Photo copy of the insurance policy
Ext.A2 - Photo copy of the letter dated 29.9.07
Ext.A3 - Photo copy of the claim form
Ext.A4 - Photo copy of the live stock claim form
Ext.A5 - Letter dated 28.1.2008
Evidence of the opposite party:-
Ext.B1 - Medical Report
// True Copy //
By Order
To Senior Superintendent
Complainant/Opposite party/ S.F.
Typed by:-pr/- Compared by:-
