NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. V. SASIKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeals arise out of the order dated 6.10.2003 passed by the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in OP No. 401/01 wherein and whereby the 1st opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 7,500 as compensation and Rs. 1,000 as cost. However dissatisfied by the order the complainant has come up in Appeal 1013/03 and the 1st opposite party is the appellant 892/03.

(2.) THE case of the complainant before the Forum was that he had purchased two milch cows after availing a loan of Rs. 25,000 from the Backward Classes Development Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram, under its employment programme for a dairy unit. One of the cows was insured with the 1st opposite party/appellant in Appeal 892/03. Though the cow was inseminated it did not become pregnant and as per the directions of the doctor, the 1st opposite party was informed. The 1st opposite party deputed a veterinary doctor to examine the cow and the doctor filed report stating that the cow was 7 - 8 months pregnant. It was on the basis of the report that the complainant's claim was repudiated. Later the complainant obtained a certificate from a Senior Veterinary Surgeon who found that the cow was not pregnant and when the complainant insisted for the claim, the 1st opposite party sent the earlier Veterinary Surgeon who is the 2nd opposite party for a second examination. However, after the second examination the 2nd opposite party filed a report stating that the cow was not pregnant and as such the company allowed a sum of Rs. 9,000 on 27.6.2001. The complainant was not satisfied by the low amount of payment since he had to incur Rs. 120 per day for feeding the cow which was actually not pregnant and hence the complaint was filed claiming Rs. 43,200 as expenses for maintaining the cow and Rs. 5,000 as compensation along with cost. A sum of Rs. 5,000 was prayed as compensation against the 2nd opposite party also.

(3.) THE 1st opposite party filed version contending that it was on the basis of the opinion of the second opposite party that the claim was repudiated at the 1st instance. However on the basis of the second report by the 2nd opposite party, the claim was settled for a sum of Rs. 9,000. The 1st opposite party raised the further contention that the complaint was not maintainable as the complainant had received the claim amount as full and final settlement and hence he could not be allowed to raise a further claim on the settled amount. It was also the case of the 1st opposite party that there was no negligence or deficiency of service on their part since they have paid the amount at the earliest stage on the 2nd report of the 2nd opposite party and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.