VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.115/07 JUDGMENT DATED.30.9.2009 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER 1. The President, Kuthungal Milk products C0-operative Society Limited No.1 128 (D) Apcose, -- APPELLANTS Kuthungal,P.O,Kanthippara Village. 2. The Secretary, Kuthungal Milk products Co-operative Society Limited No.1 128 (D) Apcose, Kuthungal PO, Kanthippara Village. (By Adv.Bija Krishnan) Vs. 1. Sabu, Valladiyil House,Mukkudil PO.Kanthippara. 2. The Manager, -- RESPONDENTS New India Assurance CompanyLtd., Branch Office, Thiruvananthapuram 682301. (R2 by Adv.Sreevaraham G.Satheesh) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties 2 and 3/Milk Producers’ Co-operative Society in CC.157/06 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellants are under orders to pay Rs.5000/- with 12% interest and Rs.1000/- as costs. 2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a milch cow and the same was insured with the 1st opposite party through the second and third opposite parties for a sum of Rs.18,000/-. During the period of insurance the cow died. It is his case that the third opposite party summoned the complainant to his office and told him that Rs.12,000/- has been sanctioned as the first instalment of the insurance amount. The Doctor who conducted the postmortem had certified that the occupied market value of the cow would be Rs.17,000/-. It was pregnant. The complainant has sought for direction for the balance amount to be paid by the opposite parties. 3. First opposite party/Insurance Company contended that the market price was assessed taking the details of the yield which was just about 4 litres. The compensation of Rs.12,000/- was paid as full and final settlement. After 3 months a notice was received claiming the balance amount. 4. The second and third opposite parties /appellants have denied any role in the matter. They had only arranged a veterinary surgeon to conduct the postmortem. 5. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, Exts.P1 to P5 and R1 to R4. 6. The Forum has held that the complainant is an illiterate person and there is deficiency in service on the part of the third opposite party in not informing the complaint that Rs.12,000/- is full settlement of the claim and hence ordered opposite parties 2 and 3 to compensate the complaint. 7. We find that the finding of the Forum in the matter is totally incorrect. There is no consumer relation between the complainant and the second and third opposite parties. Further Ext.R1 voucher is in full and final settlement of the claim. There is no case that Ext.R1 was signed by him on account of misrepresentation by the opposite party/Insurance Company or on account of some coercion etc. The claim for Rs.17,000/- itself is based on only the certificate of the Doctor who conducted the postmortem examination. In the circumstances, we find that the order of the Forum cannot be sustained. The same is set aside and the appeal is allowed. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU | | 
