Decided on April 22,2010

J Andavar Das Respondents


- (1.) BY the order dated 29.12.2008 in C.C.48/2008 the CDRF, Idukki has directed the 2nd opposite party to pay to the complainant the policy amount covered under Ext.R4 policy with 12% interest from the date of complaint and cost of Rs.2000/ - within one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the amount would carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default till payment. It is aggrieved by the said directions the present appeal is filed by the 2nd opposite party before the Commission.
(2.) THE complainant s case in brief is that he is a blind man and earns a livelihood from the sale of the milk of cow and that on 16.12.2002 the cow was attacked by wild wolves while it was grassing near the Koodampara state. The complainant further submitted that the cow was lost into the forest because of the attack of the wolves and after two months the remains of the cow were found in the estate by the watchers and a Veterinary Doctor had conducted postmortem on the remaining carcass and though the report was filed to the 2nd opposite party and requested for the payment of the insured amount, the same was repudiated. Alleging deficiency of service in the repudiation of the claim, the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to pay the insured amount with compensation.
(3.) IN the version filed by the 1st opposite party, it was submitted that the complainant was given a loan of Rs.25,000/ - for running a dairy unit consisting of two cows which were duly insured with the 2nd opposite party. It was also submitted that the company had issued an ear tag bearing number 29259/01/C and that it was informed by the complainant that the cow was lost on 16.12.2002. It was further stated that the intimation was given to the Insurance Company, the 2nd opposite party, over phone and vide letter dated 03.01.2003 contending that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the 1st opposite party it was prayed that the complaint was to be dismissed as against them. In the version of the 2nd opposite party the fact of insurance of the cow by the complainant was admitted. But they rejected the claim of the complainant and stated before the Forum that the case put forth by the complainant could not be true. It was also submitted that the claim was rejected for the reason that no intimation was given immediately after the missing of the animal and also that the ear tag was not produced. The 2nd opposite party s further case is that on an investigation it was made known that the complainant had no milch cow and the story of the loss of the cow due to attack of wild animals is not believable.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.