Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs INDURANI

THE complainant had availed a loan of Rs. 4,000/- from Indian Overseas Bank under IRDB''s Cattle Development Scheme. On the same date i.e., on 9.5.1994, she added a sum of Rs. 3,500/- to that and purchased a milching cow. THE same had been insured with the 1st opposite party through the 2nd opposite party. THE identification ear tag No. is 0929. THE said cow was in good condition and was yielding 8 litres of milk per day. THE cow had taken ill from 2.2.1997. THE veterinary surgeon from Pattiveranpatty came and treated the cow. But on 13.2.1997 the cow died. It was informed to the 1st opposite party by telegram and the officials of the 1st opposite party came and made inquiries. THE veterinary doctor of Pattiveeranpatti Government Veterinary Hospital conducted the post-mortem and has issued a certificate relating to the cow bearing ear tag No. 0929 stating that the cow died on 13.2.1997 and sent the certificate to the 1st opposite party on 21.3.1997. THE death of the cow was also reported by veterinary doctor Dr. Kanagaraj of Nilakottai, Government Veterinary Hospital to the 1st opposite party on 9.5.1997 with a certificate. THE 1st opposite party stated that the certificate has been received only to report that the cow bearing ear tag No. 0924 had died and there was no report of the death of the cow bearing ear tag No. 0929. THE Veterinary Surgeon at Nilakottai Government Veterinary Hospital, who was informed of the same, gave a letter under his letterhead stating that he had sent the certificate stating that the cow bearing ear tag No. 0929 had died and he had by mistake mentioned the ear tag number as 0924 and he has regretted for the mistake and has recommended the disbursement of the insurance amount to the complainant. Another Doctor who treated the cow, Dr. Rajasekaran also has given a certificate stating that the cow bearing ear tag No. 0929 belonged to the complainant. But in spite of that the complainant has not received any information nor any compensation from the 1st opposite party. To the notice also they have not replied. THE complainant was eking out her livelihood only with the milching cow and on account of the death of the cow, they are without any means and they are now starving. THErefore, the complaint is laid for a direction to the opposite parties to disburse the insurance amount on the death of the cow and pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for the loss of income, Rs. 1,000/- towards expenses, Rs. 15,000/- towards mental agony and for costs.

THE 1st opposite party submitted a version alleging as follows: THE allegations made in the complaint are not true. THE 2nd opposite party Bank came with contract with them by taking 10 various policies relating to animals from 20.5.1994 to 19.5.1997. One among such policies, is the policy relating to the cow of the complainant Indurani, wife of Jayaraman, with ear tag No. 0924. THE 1st opposite party received a telegram from Indurani stating that the cow with ear tag No. 0929 died. THE claim form also related to the death of the cow bearing ear tag No. 0929. THE surgeon has also submitted a valuation certificate that the cow bearing ear tag No. 0929 had died. THE investigator appointed by the 1st opposite party investigated the claim and reported that the complainant Indurani was not having any cows in her house and that she had already sold her cows before six months. THE cow bearing ear tag No. 0929 was not at all insured with the 1st opposite party and hence they did not settle the claim. THE cow with ear tag No. 0924 alone was insured with them and if that cow had died they would have settled the claim. THE report and the claim was only with regard to the cow with ear tag No. 0929 which was not insured and, therefore, the 1st opposite party could not and did not settle the claim. After reporting the death of the cow bearing ear tag No. 0929, and knowing that the complainant cannot make a claim therefor, the complainant has come forward with a false claim stating that the tag number was mentioned by mistake and has made the claim. So, the claim is an after-thought. After selling the cow with ear tag No. 0929, the complainant has now come forward to get the claim amount. Hence, the 1st opposite party is not liable to make any payment. The 2nd opposite party pleaded as follows in their version: The complaint as against the 2nd opposite party is not maintainable. All the milch animals have been insured with the 1st opposite party. The cow purchased by the complainant also has been insured with the 1st opposite party. No relief can be claimed against the 2nd opposite party.

The lower Forum directed the Ist opposite party to pay the insurance amount of Rs. 4,000/- along with a sum of Rs. 2,000/- for deficiency in service with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Hence this appeal.

UNLESS the identity of the cow that died is established and it is further proved that the said cow was the cow belonging to the complainant that was insured with the 1st opposite party, the complainant cannot maintain this complaint at all. In the complaint it is specifically stated that the complainant purchased a cow costing Rs. 7,500/- and it is the cow that bears the identification tag No. 0929. It is further stated that the said cow died and the doctor who conducted post-mortem on the same has given a certificate to the effect that the cow bearing tag No. 0929 died on 13.2.1997. It is also stated in paragraph 7 of the complaint that the Doctor at Nilakottai Government Veterinary Hospital, when informed about the mistake in the ear tag number, wrote to the 1st opposite party stating that he had given the tag number of the cow wrongly as 0924 and that it was only the cow bearing ear tag No. 0929 which belonged to the complainant that had died on 13.2.1997. It is not disputed that in the complaint as well as in the claim, the complainant has given the identification number of the cow that died as 0929. The complainant has not produced any other material such as an affidavit from the doctor who did the post-mortem to show that he conducted the post-mortem on the cow bearing ear tag No. 0929 and not on the cow bearing ear tag No. 0924. The post-mortem certificate clearly mentions the ear tag number as 0929. This is signed by the Veterinary Surgeon of the Government Veterinary Hospital, Batalagondu, Dr. P. Rajasekaran. This is what is referred to in paragraph 5 of the complaint. There is no reference to the Doctor at Nilakottai in this paragraph. In the valuation certificate also the ear tag number mentioned is only 0929. In Ex. A4, the 1st opposite party Indian Overseas Bank has given a letter to the effect that they confirm that the tag number allotted to the animal is 0929. But Ex. A-5 list shows that it is Tag Number 0924. The complainant is Indurani, wife of Jayraman. It is said that loans were advanced to 10 persons under the scheme. The insurance policy is marked as Ex. B-1. It clearly shows that Indurani, wife of Jayaraman is the owner of the cow bearing ear tag No. 0924. The list shows the names of ten persons and the tag number 0929 does not find a place there. The investigator who has been appointed to inspect the matter has stated that he was informed that Indurani was not having any cows in her house and that she had already sold her cows before six months. This report is dated 27.3.1997. Thus, from the records produced by the Oriental Insurance Company, Ist opposite party, we find that the tag No. 0924 was allotted to the complainant''s cow and that there is no record to show that the cow bearing tag No. 0929 was the cow purchased by the complainant. The records produced all show that it is only the cow bearing ear tag No. 0929 that died. In fact in Ex. A-5 itself it is stated that it is only the cow bearing tag No. 0924 that has been purchased by the complainant. The complainant produced the certificate relatable to the death of the cow bearing ear tag No. 0929. In fact from the very document Ex. A-5 we find that it is stated therein that the cow bearing ear tag No. 0924 died on 14.2.1997. But her case is that the said cow died on 13.2.1997. In the claim form, it is stated as 13.2.1997 and the death certificate also states it as 13.2.1997. The complainant is not making a claim on the ground of death of cow bearing tag No. 0924, but on the ground of death of cow bearing tag No. 0929. But the records Ex. A-5 and Ex B-2 clearly show that she purchased and availed loan for the cow bearing ear tag No. 0924. It is too much to say that the doctor committed a mistake in noting the number. If he had done it only in the one certificate issued by him, one can accept it as a mistake. But not only in the post-mortem certificate, but also in the death certificate, he has mentioned the tag number as 0929 while the complainant has stated in the claim form that it is the cow with ear tag No. 0929 that died. The cow bearing ear tag No. 0929 is not insured with the 1st opposite party. It follows that there is no liability upon them since there is neither any contract nor is there any deficiency in service in that regard. The lower Forum has completely shut its eyes to this important aspect of the matter and whatever was stated has been accepted. Therefore, we have no hesitation in rejecting the order of the lower Forum as unsustainable. Therefore, in the result, the appeal is allowed with costs of Rs. 250/-. The order of the lower Forum is hereby set aside. Time for compliance-two months. Appeal allowed with costs.