ARVIND SINGH vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

-THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 12.2.2001 in Complaint No. 15/2000 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sarguja, Ambikapur (hereinafter called ''the District Forum'' for short) dismissing the appellant''s complaint.

THE complainant''s case stated in brief was that he had purchased a cow after obtaining loan from respondent No. 2, Bank and had insured it with respondent No. 1 Insurance Company for the period from 9.1.1996 to 8.1.1997. THE policy was thereafter renewed from 22.4.1997 to 21.4.1998. THE said cow allegedly died on 18.6.1997. Intimation about the death of the cow was given to the respondent. THE respondent No. 3 Dr. Tanvir Ahmed conducted post-mortem examination of the cow. However, assured amount was not paid to the complainant; hence he approached the District Forum. The complaint was resisted by the respondent No. 1. Its averments were that intimation about the death of the cow was received by it on 18.6.1997. Respondent No. 1 has also averred that it was discovered that the claim form of the complainant was having many discrepancies regarding the date, time of death etc. It was averred that the complainant, was not found entitled to receive the assured sum. Hence, the respondent No. 1 repudiated the appellant''s claim. It was averred that there was no deficiency in service by the respondent No. 1.

The District Forum found that there was discrepancies in the date of death of the cow as alleged in the complaint and as reported by the doctor conducting post-mortem examination. The District Forum also noticed in the post-mortem examination report of Dr. Tanvir Ahmed, he had mentioned the post-mortem examination of HF Cross cow was conducted, while in the claim form the appellant had given description of cow as Jersey Cow. In view of the discrepancies as discussed in detail by District Forum, it was found that the stand of complainant/appellant was not reliable. The complaint was accordingly dismissed.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. As noticed earlier, the date of the death of the cow, as stated in complaint was 16.6.1997. The Block Development Officer in Ex. D/7 also certified that the date of death of cow was 16.6.1997, and the cow was Jersey Cross. However, post-mortem report dated 19.6.1997 marked as Exhibit D-11 in the case the above which shows that post-mortem was conducted on she-buffalo. It may be noticed in the above context that in his claim form the complainant has reported the death of the cow on 18.6.1997. The complainant in other correspondence addressed to the respondent, stated the date of death of cow on 18.6.1997. If the cow died on 18.6.1997, its post-mortem could not have been conducted on 17.6.1997, as has been mentioned in post-mortem report Ex. D/11.

CONSEQUENTLY it is clear that there are discrepancies in material facts, which has been taken note by the District Forum in the impugned order. Clearly, therefore, the complainant was not entitled to any relief. CONSEQUENTLY, the complaint was rightly dismissed by the impugned order. We find no reason for interference therein. This appeal has no substance. It is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.