AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 371 words- THIS is an appeal by the complainant.
CASE of complainant is that he had insured his cow with the opposite party for Rs. 4,000/-. On expiry of the cow, complainant demanded satisfaction of the amount for which the cow was insured. In the complaint petition, it was stated that the complainant approached the office of the opposite party for pursuing the claim and he was advised to file eartag and the medical bills, etc. of the deceased animal which were handed over to the agent. In the case stated, opposite party only denied the assertion. It has not disclosed, whether it has made any enquiry from the agent about the eartag which is the only ground for which the claim has been repudiated. Opposite party could have obtained the statement from its agent and produced the same before the District Forum if there would have been an enquiry by the opposite party. Thus, it is clear that opposite party has not made proper enquiry when there is assertion of giving of eartag to the agent. This is a deficiency in service. If complainant would have stated to opposite party earlier that the eartag had been given to the agent, we would not have hesitated to award heavy cost to compensate the complainant. Since, the fact of handing over the eartag and medical bill etc. was disclosed in the complaint petition, we feel that ends of justice would be best met in case we direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/- for which the animal had been insured by the complainant.
We direct that a sum of Rs. 4,000/- be paid to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of the appellate order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the claim till the date of payment. In order to expedite the payment, the appellant (complainant) is given the liberty to send a copy of this order to the respondent-opposite party which shall amount to due receipt of the appellate order from this Commission.
IN result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. Appeal allowed.