DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

Palakkad, Kerala

Dated this the 29^th day of June, 2012

Present: Smt. Seena. H, President

: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi A.K, Member Date of filing: 19/11/2010

CC.No. 155/2010

Joseph, S/o.Kuriakose,

Poovankunnel Veedu, - Complainant

Kaithachira, Kayaradi P.O,

Palakkad.

(By Adv.Joy Kanhirathin Chalil)

Vs

1. Divisional Manager,

Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd,

Ramakrishna Building,

Thampanur, Trivandrum.

- Opposite parties

2. Dr.Jayasree,

Govt.Veterinary Hospital,

Kayaradi P.O, Palakkad

(By Adv.K.Sureshkumar)

O R D E R

By Smt. Seena. H, President

Complainant and opposite parties represented. Matter settled between the parties. Endorsed the same. Complaint disposed of as settled.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 29^th day of June, 2012.

Sd/-

Smt. Seena. H

President

Sd/-

Smt. Preetha. G. Nair

Member

Sd/-

Smt. Bhanumathi. A. K

Member

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 27^th day of July 2011

Present : Smt. Preetha G Nair, Member

: Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K. Member Date of filing: 19/11/2010

(C.C.No.155/2010)

Joseph,

S/o.Kuryakose,

Poovankunnel Veedu,

Kaithachira, Kayaradi (PO),

Palakkad. - Complainant

(By Adv.Joy Kanhirathin Chalil)

V/s

1. Divisional Manager,

Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.

Ramakrishna Building,

Thambanoor, Trivandrum

2. Dr.Jayasree,

Govt. Veterinary Hospital,

Kayaradi (PO), Palakkad - Opposite parties

(By Adv.K.Sureshkumar)

O R D E R

By Smt.BHANUMATHI.A.K. MEMBER

The case of the complainant is as follows:

The complainant insured his cow with 1^st opposite party under the scheme of “Gosuraksha” through 2^nd opposite party and paid Rs.700/- as premium for the insurance. The ear tag No. of the cow is 7355. Thereafter the cow sustained serious injury due to a fall and the 2^nd opposite party treated the cow on 10/12/08, 15/12/08, 16/12/08 and 17/12/08. But the cow died on 18/12/08. The cow was insured for Rs.25,000/-. According to the complainant it was done by the 2^nd opposite party that to collect the insurance premium from the complainant and other dairy farmers and keeping the documents relating the insurance scheme. Immediately after the death of the cow of the complainant, he approached the 2^nd opposite party for getting compensation from the 1^st opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party obtained Cattle claim form on 31/12/2008. The 2^nd opposite party filled up the cattle claim form and complainant signed the form before a witness. The 2^nd opposite party told the complainant that the cattle claim form along with other necessary documents were sent to the 1^st opposite party and that he would get the compensation without delay. But complainant has not received any compensation till this date. Complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party several time for getting the compensation but her reply was that he would get the compensation without further delay. According to the complainant there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Lawyer notice was sent to both opposite parties and they received the same. But only 2^nd opposite party sent reply to the notice. So the complainant seeking an order directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as insurance compensation with interest of 12% and compensation for the mental agony alongwith cost of the proceedings.

Both opposite parties served notice. 1^st opposite party set exparte. 2^nd opposite party filed version with the following contentions.

2^nd opposite party admits that under ’Gosuraksha” scheme insurance amount was collected from the dairy farmers and sent to the 1^st opposite party. But it is not true to say that the documents are kept by the 2^nd opposite party. 2^nd opposite party also admits that after the death of the complainant’s cow the Cattle claim form filled up and sent to the 1^st opposite party. 2^nd opposite party has no liability with regards in compensating the complainant. If there is any claim it is the responsibility of 1^st opposite party to compensate the complainant.

2^nd opposite party raised a contention that the complainant is bad for non jointer of necessary parties. Govt. is necessary party in the case proceedings.

As a doctor, 2^nd opposite party treating the cow with her maximum effort, but it went in vain. There is no medical negligence or any deficiency in service on the part of doctor. The act of the 2^nd opposite party concerned, as an ex officio act she discharged her duty legally and faithfully. So the 2^nd opposite party prays the dismissal of the complaint.

Both parties filed their respective affidavits. Ext.A1 to Ext.A5 marked on the side of complainant. No documentary evidence is adduced on the side of opposite parties.

Matter heard.

Issues to be considered are

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party ?

2. If so, what is the relief and cost ?

We have gone through the entire documents on record.

The case of the complainant is that his cow was insured with 1^st opposite party through 2^nd opposite party and paid an amount of Rs.700/- as premium for the insurance. The ear tag number of the cow is 7355. Thereafter due to a fall the cow sustained severe injuries and 2^nd opposite treated the cow and died on 18/12/2008. The cow was insured for Rs.25,000/- under “Gosuraksha” scheme. After the death of the cow of the complainant 2^nd opposite party obtained the cattle claim form from the 1^st opposite party and filled up and sent to the 1^st opposite party for getting compensation to this complainant. But the complainant did not get any compensation from the opposite parties.

It is admitted by the 2^nd opposite party that she has collected the insurance premium amount from the dairy farmers. 2^nd opposite party also admits that she has treated the cow of the complainant and after the death of the said cow the claim form was filled up and sent to the 1^st opposite party.

Complainant produced Ext.A1 document that the copy of the cattle claim form received from 1^st opposite party dated 31/12/2008. In which it is written as “we have received your claim intimation / insured’s letter dated 19/12/2008” and it is followed by some instructions regarding the necessary documents for early processing of the claim. There is nothing to show that whether the 2^nd opposite party sent the documents to the 1^st opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party says that she is not keeping any documents regarding the said claim. But it seems to be unbelievable. As a Govt. institution there will be sufficient document for each and every proceedings.

The complainant joined in the “Gosuraksha” scheme paying insurance premium in the expectation that if anything happened to the cow he will get compensation from the opposite party. It is the undisputed fact that the insured cow of the complainant died on 18/12/2008. So the complainant is entitled to get compensation according to the value prior to the illness from the 1^st opposite party. Ext.A1 document shows that the value prior to the illness is Rs.25,000/-. The 2^nd opposite party also failed to take necessary steps for enabling the complainant to receive the compensation.

From the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency of service on both opposite parties.

In the result the complaint allowed. 1^st opposite party is directed to pay the insurance amount i.e. Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) to the complainant. Again both opposite parties jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realisation.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 27^th day of July 2011. Sd/- Smt. Preetha G Nair

Member

Sd/-

Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K.

Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 – Copy of Cattle Claim Form dtd.31/12/08 obtained from 1^st opposite

party

Ext.A2 – Copy of lawyer notice dtd.18/8/10 sent to opposite parties

Ext.A3 series - Postal receipt of lawyer notice sent to opposite parties

Ext.A4 series – Postal acknowledgment card of lawyer notice sent to the

opposite parties

Ext.A5 - Reply to lawyer notice dated 28/8/10 sent by 2^nd opposite party.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties

Nil

Cost Allowed

Rs.1,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings