By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:<br /> <br /> The case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner is a cattle farmer and is living out of the income derived from it. On 2.9.05 she bought a cow from a person named Kollasseri Unnikrishnan for an amount of Rs.18,500/-. She had insured the cow as Breed-cow HF Cross Breed, No.17465 – UI CFSS for a period from 7.9.05 to 6.9.06 in the first respondent Company. On 12.9.05 she had paid Rs.728- as first insurance premium in the PDDP Central Society. While taking the policy the cattle was in a good health and it was certified by a Veterinary Surgeon Dr. A.K. Bose. The petitioner got 16 litres of milk daily from the above cow. She had given milk to PDDP Society and to other private persons as well and it is the only means of her livelihood. She got about Rs.200/- daily from the above means. She looked after the cow carefully and Rs.100/- spent for this regularly. Subsequently on 28.9.05 the cow died due to pneumonia. Hence on 28.9.05, the petitioner had applied for the insurance claim to the first respondent company. But the respondent rejected the claim. It was against the policy conditions. There was no default on the part of the petitioner. She had occurred a huge loss due to the death of the cow. The petitioner contacted the respondent several times to the policy benefits, but not received. Hence the complaint.<br /> <br /> 2. The averments in the counter of first respondent are as follows. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant has taken the cattle insurance policy from the first respondent who is carrying business at Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam District and the Regional Office of the Company is also situated at Ernakulam. Hence for the reasons stated above this Hon’ble Forum is not having any jurisdiction to entertain the above complaint. Even though the complainant has made the Trichur Office as 2nd respondent there was no contractual agreement between 2nd respondent and the complainant. They had granted the cattle insurance coverage for the period from 12.9.05 to 1.9.06 and it is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy issued. The respondent specifically denies the averment that the complainant has taken the insurance coverage from 7.9.05 to 6.9.06. The complainant herself has stated that the first insurance premium was paid on 12.9.05 and hence itself proves that the commencement of the policy was only from 12.9.05 the date on which the premium was paid. They had repudiated the claim relying on the policy conditions and the reason was communicated vide letter dt. 30.11.05 ie. due to disease occurring within 15 days from the commencement of the risk. Hence no deficiency in service. So the petitioner is not entitled for any relief for the above said heads. Hence dismiss with costs.<br /> <br /> 3. The counter of 2nd respondent is as follows: The complaint is filed against this respondent without any bonafides/merits and is not maintainable before law or on facts and will not come as a consumer under the purview of Consumer Protection act. The cattle claim is pending at the office due to non-realisation of premium which has been paid to the respondent as treasury cheque. The treasury cheque is not realised even now. The policy is valid subject to realization of cheque. In case of dishonour of cheque the policy will automatically stand cancelled without realising the premium. The respondent company is not responsible for the claim. The complainant does not liable to get any amount from the respondent. Hence dismiss with cost. <br /> <br /> 4. The point to be considered is whether the complaint is maintainable here?<br /> <br /> 5. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P7 and Exts. R1 to R5. <br /> <br /> 6. The point: This is a complaint filed for availing cattle insurance benefits from the respondent Company. The only point to be considered is whether the complaint is maintainable here or not. The complainant has taken the cattle insurance policy from the first respondent who is carrying business at Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam District and the Regional Office of the Company is also situated at Ernakulam. Even though the complainant has made the Thrissur Office as 2nd respondent there was no contractual relations between 2nd respondent and the complainant. The relief sought against the first respondent only. There is no cause of action against the 2nd respondent. The functioning of Branch office at Thrissur does not confer jurisdiction to Thrissur Forum. Since there is lack of jurisdiction we inclined to dismiss the complaint with liberty to approach the proper Forum.<br /> <br /> 7. In the result, the complaint is dismissed with liberty to approach the proper Forum. <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 17th day of November 2008.<br />