By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:<br /> <br /> The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> <br /> The complaint in brief is as follows.<br /> <br /> The Complainant is in the avocation of Milk Farm. The Opposite Party insured the cow of the Complainant with policy No. 101602/47/05/02861 for an amount of Rs.18,000/- on 05.09.2006. The hip born of the cow was injured on slipping. The Veterinary Doctor K. Satheesh Kumar treated the cow on the injury and could not be recovered. The cow was not in a position to stand up and eat food. The doctor who treated the cow lastly opined that the cow will not be recovered and a certificate was issued to the Complainant in prescription of the same. The total permanent disability certificate issued by the Doctor was given to the Opposite Party. A Surveyor appointed by the Opposite Party made an inspection visit and was also convinced of the facts. The estimate value of the cow as per the report of the Doctor prior to the decease is shown as Rs. 15,000/- and after the injury value of the cow shown<br /> (Contd........ 2)<br /> - 2 -<br /> is Rs.3,000/- as per the report of the Doctor. The amount shown in the claim form as per which the insurance amount is Rs.18,000/-. The Opposite Party gave to the Complainant the cheque of Rs.9,000/- on 26.09.2006. The decision of the Opposite Party is unilateral the balance amount of the claim amount Rs.9,000/- is yet to be received by the Complainant. The Complainant received cheque under pretext and also claimed that the Opposite Party is liable to given the remaining amount. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to give Complainant Rs.9,000/- along with cost of this complaint.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party filed version on their appearance. The cattle policy issued in favour of the Complainant is admitted as per the terms and the conditions of policy. The liability of the Opposite Party in the event of PTD claim limited to 50% of sum insured or the market value<br /> of the animal prior to the illness which ever is less. The cattle claim received from the <br /> Complainant is permanently total disablement of the cow. The claim was settled for Rs.9,000/-. As the full and final settlement of the claim a voucher was also given by the Complainant. As per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy the Opposite Party is entitled to give only 50% of the amount insured. The present value of the cow is only Rs.3,000/- as assessed by the Doctor. The value of the cow prior to the illness is Rs.15,000/-. The Complainant was given Rs.9,000/- as the full and final settlement. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party the contractual obligation was fully satisfied. The Complainant not entitle for any compensation the complaint is to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> The points in consideration are:<br /> 1.Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?<br /> 2.Relief and costs.<br /> <br /> (Contd....... 3)<br /> - 3 -<br /> Point No.1: <br /> The Complainant is examined as PW1. The photo copy of the cheque issued to the Complainant on 26.9.2006 is the Ext.A1. The Complainant has no dispute that he has not received the 50% of the insured amount. Ext.A2 is the cattle claim form. The value of the animal prior to the illness is Rs.18,000/-. The injury cost on the animal is bilateral hip displacement. Ext.A4 is the veterinary certificate. The value of the animal prior to illness as per this document is Rs.15,000/- Ext.A6 is the cattle insurance policy schedule. The clause 9 of the cattle insurance policy states that the liability of the Insurer is restricted 50% to 70% sum insured or market value at the time of loss which ever is less. Here in the Complainant has been paid Rs. 9,000/-. The market value of the animal at the time of loss as per Ext.A4 is Rs.15,000/-. Any how the Opposite Party paid 50% of the insured amount there is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party. The point No.1 is found in favour of the Opposite Party. <br /> Point No.2: <br /> There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party rendered service as per the norms of P.T.D claim. The detail analysis of the point No.2 is not necessary. <br /> <br /> <br /> In the result, the complaint is dismissed and no order upon costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the 14th day of March 20008.<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT: Sd/- <br /> <br /> MEMBER: Sd/-<br /> <br /> /True Copy/<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.<br /> <br /> - 4 -<br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> Witnesses for the Complainant:<br /> <br /> PW1. Raphel. Complainant.<br /> <br /> Witnesses for the Opposite Party:<br /> <br /> Nil.<br /> <br /> Exhibits for the Complainant:<br /> <br /> A1. Photo copy of the cheque dt:26.09.2006.<br /> A2. Photo copy of the Cattle Claim Form.<br /> A3. Photo copy of the Permanent total <br /> disability certificate. dt:12.09.2006.<br /> <br /> A4. Photo copy of the Veterinary Certificate. dt:13.09.2006.<br /> A5. Photo copy of the Certificate. dt:11.09.2006.<br /> A6. Photo copy of the Cattle Insurance Policy. dt:21.02.2006.<br /> <br /> Exhibits for the Opposite Party:<br /> <br /> Nil.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Compared by:<br /> <br /> M/<br />