KERALASTATE CNSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.852/04 JUDGMENT DATED 5.6.2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT 1. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, Sharanya Hospital Road, P.B.No.1181, Kochi – 682011. 2. The Branch Manager, -- APPELLANTS M.G.Road, Kasaragod rep. by Sr.Divisional Manager, Divisional Office-1,LMS Compound,] Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv.R.Jagadish Kumar) Vs. 1. Prabhavathi 2. D.Arunkumar -- RESPONDENTS 3. Soumyalatha 4. Tilak kumar all residing at Pulinchal House, BandadkaVillage, Manimoola P.O, Kasaragod Taluk. (By Adv.G.S.Kalkura) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/United India Insurance Company Ltd in OP.318/03 in the file of CDRF, Kasaragod. The appellants are under orders to pay the assured sum of Rs.1 lakh to the complainants. 2. The case of the complainants who are the LRs of the deceased assured is that the assured died while running behind a cow. According to them the deceased felt chest pain while running and fell down. He was feeding the cow in the garden when it ran away. There was an Insurance coverage under Kamadhenu Insurance Scheme with coverage with respect to accidental death to the members of the family of the owner of the cow. The coverage was rupees one lakh for death due to accident. It is the case of the complainants that the deceased was immediately taken to KasaragodTalukHospital where from the doctor referred him to District Hospital Kasaragod. But on the way he died. The claim was repudiated. 3. The opposite parties have contended that the death in the instant case was not on account of any accident. It is also pointed out that claim was made belatedly. The claim should have been made within 14 days from the date of the incident. The alleged death was on 31.1.03. Only a registered notice was received on 29.4.03. It is contended that the case, that the deceased ran behind the cow etc. is a cooked up story. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PWs 1 and 2, DWs 1 and 2, Exts.A1 to A7 and B1 to B5. 5. The Forum has relied on the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, the son and wife of the deceased with respect to the incident. The contradictions pointed out was rejected. The opposite parties/appellants have pointed out that the deceased aged 59 had cardiac pain in the morning at about 6 AM and he was taken to the hospital and thereafter on the way to the DistrictHospital he died. It is the contention that he was a landlord and an active politician ( a Panchayath Member) and had no occasion to feed the cow etc. It is pointed out that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 are contradictory. PW1 has deposed that his father was found lying in the cattle shed at about 6.30 AM whereas PW2, the wife has stated that at about 6 AM his husband was seen lying in the Areca garden. The above contradictions are too prominent. Further the claim has been made belatedly. It is the result of an afterthought. DW1, the investigator has testified in proof of Ext.B3 investigation report. He has taken the statement of the wife of the complainant and enquired with others in the locality and it is his report that the deceased died on account of cardiac problems and not when he ran after the cow and fell down. Ext.B2, is the statement recorded by him of PW2. It is to the effect that her husband was found lying down in the cattle shed. Further DW2, the Doctor of the TalukCorporationSocietyHospital who had examined the deceased and referred him to the DistrictHospital, has testified that the deceased or others did not tell him of any incident of the deceased running after the cow. DW1 has also enquired about the matter with DW2. The Doctor has also stated that Ext.A2, OP record did not mention of any injury. What is noted in Ext.A2 is suspected acute Miocardial infraction. 6. We find that no previous record of treatment has been produced. As per Ext.B1 claim form what has been mentioned is that the cow ran away and on catching the same it pulled down and heart failed. As pointed out no fall as such is mentioned in Ext.B1 claim form. We find that at best it is only a case of the deceased just running after the cow. The cow did not attack him, even if the case of the complainants is treated as true. The deceased had just ran behind the cow and he felt chest pain and subsequently died. The incident cannot be treated as an accident as such and not contemplated as an accident as per the accidental death, compensation scheme attached to the Kamadhenu Insurance Scheme. We find that the case of the cow running away and the deceased running after the cow also did not appear to be true in the light of the contradictions in the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and in the light of non mention of the above incident to the Doctor and the absence of any injuries on the person of the deceased . In the circumstances, the order of the Forum is set aside. The appeal is allowed. Office will forward the LCR to the Forum along with the copy of this order. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT | 
