O R D E R<br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.<br /> Petitioner's case is as follows:<br /> Petitioner is a Farmer and he is rearing a cow belonging to brown category. The said cow according to the petitioner fetched above Rs. 20,000/-. Petitioner is getting milk up to 10 ltrs. twice a day. The opposite party as a part of implementation of the project of “compulsory vaccination against foot and mouth disease” came to the house of<br /> <br /> -2-<br /> <br /> the petitioner and asked the petitioner to take vaccination. Petitioner on 17th October 2004 paid an amount of Rs. 5/- and took vaccination for his cow. Unfortunately after the vaccination cow of the petitioner was fell ill and the cow was unable to stand on its legs. Wounds were developed on the body of the cow and bad odour was emitting from the body of the cow. According to the petitioner disease was caused due to the improper vaccination. He states that the quality of the vaccin was not good. No proper precaution was taken by the opposite party for not causing disease to the animal after vaccination. The petitioner claiming compensation, filed several petition to the Senior Veterinary Surgeon, District Collector, Hon'ble Minister for Animal Husbandry etc. but the grievance of the petitioner was not redressed. On 23..10..2004 the President of the Kanjirappally Grama Panchayath had given a recommendation to the Senior Veterinary Surgeon recommending to give compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner states that he was getting 10 ltrs. milk twice a day. After the disease of his cow inorder to give milk to the Kanjirappally diocese he has to spend Rs. 8050/-' The petitioner states that in order to meet the treatment expenses he had spend Rs. 1500/- Due to the diseases caused to the cow the petitioner had a loss of Rs. 6000/- in his income from the cow. According to the petitioner the cow has caused disease due to the deficiency in service rendered by the opposite party. He alleges that the opposite party has not taken proper care before vaccination. So he seeks compensation in the tune of Rs. 24000/- for the loss of income sustained to the petitioner and another Rs. 20000/- as the cost of the cow. He also claims Rs.1,500 as the treatment expenses incurred and for the mental sufferings, petitioner<br /> <br /> -3-<br /> <br /> claims an amount of Rs. 7500/- for his mental sufferings and as as cost of proceedings he claims Rs. 10000/-.<br /> Opposite party entered appearance and filed joint version the opposite party contended that vaccination by the opposite party is as per the compulsory vaccination programme to all animals against foot and mouth disease and vaccination is done in order to prevent the out break of the said disease. The entire vaccination was taken as per government order dtd: 24..8..2004. The opposite party denied the contension of the petitioner regarding the yield of 10 ltrs. milk twice a day. The opposite party also denies about the contract between the petitioner and the diocese of Kanjirappally with regard to supply of milk. According to the opposite party, if proper care was given to the cow, as directed, after vaccination no disease will have caused to the cow. They also contended that the cow is healthy. They contented that as per the complaint given by the petitioner to the Hon'ble Chief Minister and the Minister for Animal Husbandry, District Co-ordinator, animal disease control project, Kottayam, Examined the animal on 7..4..2005 and given a report to the effect that animal is healthy. The opposite party contended that as per norms, compensation can be given if anima is dead or if abortion is caused to the animal after vaccination. The vaccination is done with due care and caution, Scientifically proved vaccine was given to the animal. According to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part. So, they pray for dismissal of the petition with costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> -4-<br /> <br /> Points for determination are:<br /> i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> ii) Reliefs and Costs.<br /> Evidence in the case consists of affidavit of the petitioner and Ext. A1 to A9 documents, opposite parties evidence consists of affidavit of the second opposite party and Ext. B1 to B2 documents.<br /> Point No. 1<br /> The points to be decided in this case is whether the cow of the petitioner was caused disease after vaccination for foot and mouth disease. The opposite parties definite case is that after vaccination no such diseases and disabilities as alleged by the petitioner has caused to the cattle. The opposite party produced the certificate issued by the District Project Officer, Animal disease Control Project on 7..4..2005 and the document is marked as Ext. B2. According to the opposite party as per Ext. B2 the animal has no disease and the animal is healthy. The opposite party further contented that the vaccination is done correctly after taking all scientific precaution and is done after proper testing. If the cattle is dead or abortion is caused after vaccination then only the petitioner is entitled for compensation. The petitioner has produced copy of petition submitted by the petitioner on 23..10..2004 to the Senior Veterinary Surgeon, Kanjirappally the said document is marked as Ext. A3. On 25..10..2004 the petitioner submitted a petition to the District Collector, Kottayam and the copy of said document is<br /> <br /> <br /> -5-<br /> <br /> marked as Ext. A5. On 30..10..2004 the petitioner had given another complaint to the Hon'ble Minister for Animal Husbandary department, the copy of said document is marked as Ext. A6. Ext. A9 is the Malayala Manorama daily news paper of 22nd December 2005 in which the news regarding the after effects of vaccination is published. The President of Kanjirappally Grama Panchayath. On 23..10..2004 had given a letter to the Senior Veterinary Surgeon, Kanjirappallycopy of the said document is marked as Ext. A4. From Ext. A4 it can be infered that the after vaccination the cattle of the petitioner was seriously ill and some bad odour was eminating from the body of the cattle. The opposite party produced a government order as G.O (Rt.) No. 1350/2004/AD the said document is marked as Ext. B1. From Ext. B1 it can be seen that the Panchayath President is the Chairman of the Panchayath level project management implementation committee. From Ext. A4 it can be seen that the chairman of the implementation committee himself certifies that the animal was suffering from diseases, as an after effect of vaccination. Further more he recommended to the Senior Veterinary Surgeon for giving maximum compensation. The opposite parties are relying on Ext. B2 to prove that the animal was healthy. But the Ext. B2 is on 7..4..2005 that is even after a lapse of 6 months after vaccination. So, B2 cannot be relied. Considering the whole evidence in this case we are of the opinion that due to the voluntary vaccination the petitioner's cattle had caused disease. So, the act of the opposite party of taking vaccination without proper care and precaution for not causing side effect is a clear deficiency in service. So point No. 1 is found accordingly.<br /> <br /> -6-<br /> <br /> Point No. II<br /> In view of the finding in point No. 1 the petition is to be allowed and the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs sought for. The petitioner has produced medical bills for an amount of Rs. 848.42 the bills were marked as Ext. A2 series. The petitioner produced certain vouchers dated 17..10..2004, 31..8..2004, 30..9..2004 the said bills were marked as Ext. A8 series documents. The said vouchers were issued from the Kanjirappally diocese for the milk given by the petitioner during the time when his cow was ill. Due to the deficiency in service of the opposite party the petitioner had incurred expenses for treatment of the cow including medical expense, treatment fees etc. So, we are of the opinion that allowing Rs. 4000/- as compensation to the petitioner is not excess.<br /> Since the 5th opposite party implemented the scheme and the other opposite party are acted in accordance with the direction of the 5th opposite party. The 5th opposite party is held liable to compensate the loss incurred to the petitioner.<br /> In the result, the following order is passed the 5th opposite party is ordered to pay compensation of Rs. 4000/- to the petitioner and to pay Rs. 1000/- as cost of the proceedings. This order shall be complied with within 30 days of receipt of this order.<br /> Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 18th day of April, 2008.<br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-<br /> Smt. Bindhu M Thomas, Member Sd/-<br />