ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER.

            This complaint  is for claiming  Insurance amount and other reliefs.

          The averment in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:

          The complainant is the MSDP cow unit of the annual scheme of 2006-07 of the Kerala Govt. which is implemented through 1^st and 2^nd opp.party.      The complainant availed a loan from the 3^rd opp.party as per the direction of the 1 and 2 opp.parties.   4^th Opp.party is the insurer who promised to gave live stock cattle insurance at the time of death or permanently disablement of cattle .  The complainant is a reputed dairy  farmer was not disputed by opp.parties.   The cattle with tag No.24933 with a market value of Rs.11,200/- having 6 year age  was purchased and handed over to complainant on 14.6.07 by 2^nd opp.party on the direction of 1^st opp.party.    and another cattle with tag No77711 with market value of Rs.12,000/- having 4 year age was purchased and handed over to complainant on 21.7.07 by 2^nd opp.party as entrusted by 1^st opp.party.  Both of them were insured by 4^th opp.party  The assurance given by expert is that each of them have a milk yield of 12 liter and it is free from disease.    After the purchase the complainant feed them with proper care and nourishment. Seen that the cattle are low yielding the cattle have some health problems including deceases.  The cattles have only 2.5 liters of milk in place of 24 liters as assured.    The complainant have to spend Rs.400/- per day  The complainant taken an insurance from the 4^th opp.party who assured help at the time of any loss.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint to get the insurance coverage to the said cows from the 4^th opp.party and for other relief.

          Opp.parties 1 and 2 are filed version  denying the contentions of the complaint.   According to them the complaint the cows are selected and purchased by the complainant himself.  Hence opp.parties 1 and 2 are not liable to get compensated

The 4^th opp.party filed a separate version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The 4^th opp.party insured a jersey cow having identification No.77711 belonging to the complainant.   The said cattle was purchased under the MSDP Scheme of the Government  The 3^rd opp.party had advanced a credit facility for the purchase of the cow.   The averment in para 5 are false and hence denied.    The policy issued by the 4^th opp.party covers the risk of death of the animal due to disease accident or permanent  total incapacity to conceive or incapacity of yield milk.    The alleged low yield of milk is not a ground for preferring a claim to the insurer.    The 4^th opp.party has duly intimated the 3^rd opp.party why the claim is not entertainable by  it..  It is reiterated that the low yield of milk is not a ground enabling the complainant to prefer a claim from the Insurer.     The 4^th opp.party has no knowledge regarding the alleged conspiracy between the 1^st and 2^nd opp.party in purchasing and distributing cows of poor quality.  The complainant is alleging deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st and 2^nd opp.parties.    This opp.party is not aware of the reasons why the complainant is defaulting the repayment of the loan to the 3^rd opp.party.  The complainant has no cause of action.  Hence the 4^th opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint.

Points that would arise for consideration are:

1.     Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties

2.     Reliefs and costs.

For the complainant PW.1 and 2 are examined. Ext. P1 is marked.

No oral or documentary evidenced by the opp.parties.

Points 1 and 2

          4^th opp.party admits only the policy coverage in respect of cow having Tag No.77711 alone.   The complainant has produced evidence only with regard to the said cow.  Hence no question has been arised with regard to cow having TagNo.24933.   Ext.P2 shows that milk yield  of animal at the time of death/injury is 7+3 liters.   Complainant’s case is that the milk yield is only 1 liters.   Fro that the complainant did not produce any evidence.   As per Ext.P2 the complainant will get the insurance claim only in case of death of the animal or in case of injury disease resulted in permanent incapacity to conceive or yield milk.  Here the  complainant has a case that the said cow has disease.    But the complainant failed to adduce evidence with regard to that pleading.  Hence as per the policy condition the complainant is not entitled to get the claim amount.

In the result the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

Dated this the 31^st day of March, 2010.

                                                                                    .

List of witnesses for the complainant

PW.1. – N. Sreedharan

PW.2. – Dr. P.B. Prasad

List of documents for the complainant

P1. – Certificate  dt. 11.10.2007

No oral or documentary evidence  for the opp.party.