NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs AMOLAK DASS

-AMOLAK Dass, respondent No. 1 took loan from Sangrur Central Co-operative Limited Bank, Gehlan Branch, respondent No. 2 and purchased buffaloes. He got insured the said buffaloes from the appellants-Insurance Company. One of the insured buffaloes died on 22. 12. 2000. He lodged the claim with the appellants. The appellants repudiated the claim on 11. 6. 2001. Hence, he filed a complaint in the learned District Forum, Sangrur.

THE appellants filed the written reply. Preliminary objections were pleaded and the case was also contested on merits. It was admitted that two buffaloes of respondent No. 1 were insured by them with tag No. 29401 and 29402. The plea taken by the appellants was that the information about the death was not given in time and the identification of the buffalo which had died was different from the identification from the buffalo which was insured. The tag was not returned with the claim papers. The terms and conditions of the policy have been violated. The claim has been lodged with fraudulent intention. The parties tendered some documents in evidence.

The learned District Forum considered the matter and vide impugned judgment dated 17. 9. 2002 accepted the complaint.

HENCE the appeal. The record has been perused and the submissions have been considered.

THE appellants have placed on the file a copy of letter dated 11. 6. 2001 which they had sent to respondent No. 1. In this letter, the appellants had acknowledged the receipt of information from respondent No. 1 about the death of the buffalo. They had taken the plea that buffalo which had died was not the same which was insured as the identification particulars of the buffalo which died, did not tally with the identification particulars of the buffalo which was insured. The appellants have not taken the plea in this letter if the information was not given by respondent No. 1 to the appellants in time. Therefore, this plea of the appellants appears to be unfounded and without basis. The said buffalo was subjected to post-mortem examination and a copy of the post-mortem report, duly signed by the Veterinary Officer Incharge, Civil Veterinary Hospital. Bhawanigarh (Sangrur) has been proved as Ex. C-2. In this report, the description of the buffalo has been given specifically and tag No. 29401 is also specifically mentioned over it. When the intimation was given by the appellants in time, they should have deputed some person to be there at the time of post-mortem examination of the buffalo which was insured by them and which was reported to have died. Therefore, the objection of the appellants later on that identification particulars of the buffalo which had died and which was subjected to post-mortem examination did not tally with the identification particulars of the buffalo which was insured with the appellants.

THE appellants have not placed on the file any letter by which they might have asked the respondent to return the ear tag of the buffalo which had died and which was insured with them. Therefore, they cannot take the plea that the ear tag was not returned nor they can repudiate the claim on this ground.

IN view of discussion held above, the impugned order dated 17. 9. 2002 is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. No costs. The arguments in this case were heard on 31. 1. 2008 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties. Appeal dismissed.