NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs Pritam Singh

PRITAM Singh, respondent No. 1 was a resident of village Kamagar. By obtaining loan from Punjab Agricultural Development Bank, respondent No. 2, he had purchased 10 cows for running the business of dairy farm. These cows were insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, respondent No. 3 through respondent No. 2. The insurance cover was valid for the period from 28. 4. 2000 to 27. 4. 2001. On 6. 8. 2000 due to some poisoning, 3 cows bearing ear tag Nos. 36677, 36678 and 36679 died between 11 p. m. to 12 p. m. in the night. On the next morning, respondent No. 1 informed the appellants and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 about the death of these cows. Respondent No. 3, Insurance Company, conducted the spot inspection through their Surveyor, Pawan Kumar, and the death of these cows was verified vide report dated 7. 8. 2000. Post-mortem of all the three dead cows was conducted by Dr. Manjit Singh, Veterinary Officer of Governemnt Pig Breading Farm, Malwal on 7. 8. 2000. He also submitted the report. Pawan Kumar, Surveyor vide his report dated 13. 8. 2000 reported that the dead cows were the same which were insured. Photocopies of dead cows were also taken. Statements of respectable of the village were also recorded. Respondent No. 2 reported the matter to the appellants. The appellants deputed Dr. G. S. Sachar, Senior Veterinary Surgeon for investigation who submitted his report dated 11. 9. 2000. The claim for one cow was allowed by the appellants but the claim of two cows was repudiated. Hence respondent No. 1 filed a complaint in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozpur (in short ''the District Forum'') for insurance amount of remaining two cows, compensation and costs.

RESPONDENT No. 2 had filed the written reply. Preliminary objections were pleaded and the case was also contested on merits. It was admitted that Pritam Singh, respondent No. 1 had taken the loan but complaint against respondent No. 2 was not maintainable. It was also admitted that respondent No. 1 had informed respondent No. 2 about the death of cows. It was also pleaded that respondent No. 1 had already received the claim of Rs. 72,000 for the death of 4 cows earlier. It was pleaded that the claim for one cow was passed by the appellants while the claim for other two cows was repudiated. Hence it was pleaded that the complaint qua respondent No. 2 be dismissed. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. , respondent No. 3 also filed the written reply. It was submitted that respondent No. 1 has suppressed the material facts and complicated questions of facts and law were involved in this case and the matter be referred to the Civil Court. It was admitted that the answering respondent had deputed the Surveyor who had submitted his report. It was further submitted that the answering respondent was not the insurer of any of these cows. Hence dismissal of the complaint with special costs was prayed.

The appellants also filed the written statement. Preliminary objections were pleaded and the case was also contested on merits. It was pleaded that the case involved complicated questions of law and facts and the matter be relegated to the Civil Court. It was submitted that viscera of the dead cows was not sent for chemical examination, therefore, it cannot be ascertained if the said cows had died by poisoning. Moreover, respondent No. 1 buried the carcass of the dead animal and were never shown to the answering respondent for inspection. The investigation made by the appellants revealed that only one cow bearing tag No. 36678 had died and the insurance claim of respondent No. 1 for this cow was accepted and the amount was paid to him. However, the claim for the remaining two cows bearing tag Nos. 36677 and 36679 was found to be false and was repudiated. It was admitted that spot inspection was got done by the appellants. The report of the Surveyor was only recommendatory and not mandatory. The dead cows were not the same which were insured having ear tag Nos. 36677 and 36679. Hence dismissal of the complaint was prayed.

RESPONDENT No. 1 tendered in evidence document Exs. C-1 and C-2 (pages 1 to 89) while appellants and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 produced documents Exs. R-1 to R-11. On the basis of this evidence, the learned District Forum accepted the complaint vide order dated 3. 12. 2002 with cost of Rs. 1,500 and directed the appellants to make the payment of Rs. 36,000 to respondent No. 1 with interest @ 9% p. a. from the date of death of the cows till the date of realization.

HENCE the appeal. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants was that information was not given in time by respondent No. 1 to the appellants, and, therefore, the carcass of the dead animal could not be inspected by them. Respondent No. 1 had taken the plea that information was given to all the respondents immediately on 7. 8. 2000.

THE document on the file reveals that Pritam Singh, respondent No. 1 had filed an application before the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. , Ferozepur on 7. 8. 2000 intimating the death of three cows in the night intervening 6th and 7th of August, 2000 at about 11. 00-12. 00 p. m. This application was received by the official of Oriental Insurance Company on the same date i. e. , 7. 8. 2000 (page 109 of the record file of the learned District Forum ). The Punjab Agricultural Development Bank sent the letter to Manager, National Insurance Company intimating the death of three cows owned by Pritam Singh, respondent No. 1. Therefore, respondent No. 1 had sent intimation to Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. considering the said company to be the insurer of the cows and also to the Punjab Agricultural Development Bank, respondent No. 2 from whom he had taken the loan.

THE fact remains that respondent No. 1 was under the impression that the cows were insured with Oriental Insurance Company Limited, respondent No. 3 and that is why the information was given to them on 7. 8. 2000 itself. It is admitted even by the appellants that previously the cows were insured with Oriental Insurance Company Limited, therefore, the belief of respondent No. 1 that cows were insured with Oriental Insurance Company Limited was most justified. This was possible for the reason because the insurance policy was got done through the financier namely, Punjab Agricultural Development Bank. Ferozpur, respondent No. 2. It may be possible that respondent No. 1 was not aware at the time of death of cows as to who was the insurer of these cows. After receiving the information, the Oriental Insurance Company deputed Pawan Kumar, Surveyor. The Surveyor went at the spot on 7. 8. 2000 to inspect the dead cows. He also gave the description of dead cows. The neighbours and village Sarpanch also informed Pawan Kumar that three cows of Pritam Singh, respondent No. 1 had died last night between 11. 00 p. m. to 12. 00 p. m. He has also recorded the fact that Dr. Manjit Singh had examined the dead cows who had told that the cows had expired due to spread of disease. The report of Pawan Kumar dated 13. 8. 2000 clearly reveals that he had seen the three cows of Pritam Singh which were lying dead and these cows were the same which were insured and each dead cow was wearing an ear tag bearing No. 36677, 36678 and 36679.

The statement of Dr. Manjit Singh, Veterinary Officer of the Government Pig Breading Farm, Nalwal, Ferozepur has also been placed on the file the post-mortem report. He had reported that he had visited the Farm of Pritam Singh on 7. 8. 2000 and conducted the post-mortem examination of three dead cows. These had died due to chemical poisoning. He could not the the viscera of these cows for lab examination. These dead cows were having tag Nos. 36677, 36678 and 36679 (page 121 of the record file of learned District Forum ).

IN view of discussion held above, there is sufficient evidence on the file that three cows of Pritam Singh, respondent No. 1 which were insured with the appellants bearing ear tag Nos. 36677, 36678 and 36679 had died on the night intervening 11. 00 p. m. to 12. 00 on 6. 8. 2000. Due intimation was given by respondent No. 1 to Oriental Insurance Company Limited and to the financier, respondent No. 2 of these cows. The cows were duly examined by Pawan Kumar, Surveyor of the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and these were subjected to post-mortem examination by Dr. Manjit Singh. Both Pawan Kumar, Surveyor and Dr. Manjit Singh had reported that these dead cows were the same which were insured and were bearing ear tag Nos. 36677, 36678 and 36679. As discussed above, the intimation was also sent by the financier, respondent No. 2 to the appellants on 7. 8. 2000 itself. Therefore, there does not appear to be any attempt on the part of Pritam Singh, respondent No. 1 to keep concealed the dead cows from the appellants.

THERE is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,000. The arguments in this case were heard on 17. 3. 2008 and the orders were reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period because of heavy pendency and non-availability of the requisite Benches and infrastructure in the State Commission, for which the State Government has already been requested. Appeal dismissed.