New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs FANRU

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.8.2003 passed by the District Forum, Tehri, Garhwal whereby the complaint of the complainant was allowed for recovery of insured amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand) along with cost of litigation of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred).

THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased one mule after taking loan from Ganga Yamuna Gramin Bank, Thati. THE mule was insured for Rs 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand) with the Insurance Company. THE mule was having tag No. 98/321907/733. On 1.2.2002, the mule died due to an accident. THE complainant informed the Insurance Company about the death of the mule through the Bank. But the Insurance Company neither sent him the claim form, nor paid the insured amount and repudiated his claim. THErefore, he filed the complaint before the District Forum claiming the insured amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand) along with 12% interest and cost of litigation of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) and also compensation for mental pain and agony of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand). The opposite party filed written statement and alleged that the Bank through its letter dated 31.5.2002, only sent claim form, Panchnama and tag but did not send the post-mortem report of the mule. The full details of the insurance have also not been given. Therefore the complainant is not entitled to any compensation.

We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and gone through the records. Purchase of the mule is admitted. Its insurance is admitted. Death of the mule and every thing is admitted. In the proposal form dated 7.1.2000, the value of the mule is written as Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand). In the appeal filed by the Insurance Company the tag No. of the said mule is given as 98/321907/733. The Insurance Company alleged that it has insured two mules for Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand) but they have only identified the dead mule by above tag number. Even in the letter of the Bank dated 31.5.2002, there was no mention of two mules. In the letter of the Bank, it is clearly mentioned that claim form, Panchnama and tag are enclosed with this letter. The appellant alleged that the complainant has not filed the post-mortem report of the mule but it admitted that it received the claim form, Panchnama and tag of the dead mule. Tag of the mule is in itself the identification of the dead mule. In the medical report and the claim form, the doctor has also certified about the post-mortem report.

ONE thing is clear that the mule, which was insured with the appellant, is identified by its tag number. There was no other mule as alleged by the appellant which could be identified to prove that the appellant insured two mules for Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand). If two mules were insured there must have been two different tag numbers. The Panchnama clearly proves the death of the mule, which is supported by an affidavit of the complainant. The certificate of the Veterinary Doctor dated 13.7.2000 has also been filed in which tag number, colour and everything is written. In para 5 of the complaint, it is specifically written that the post-mortem report along with Panchnama of the insured mule was sent to the appellant through the Bank. It is now clear that there was no other mule, which was insured by the appellant and the appellant has not been able to prove that it insured two mules. Ordinarily when a mule or any other cattle is purchased, it is insured through the Bank. The Bank is not a party in this case but the Insurance Company has got every right to make a survey. The statement of the son of the complainant has also been filed on the basis of the survey report. The claim form was also forwarded by the Bank, therefore, what was obligatory on the part of the Insurance Company was that it should have collected papers from the Bank to show that two mules were insured and the details of both the mules insured should have been given by the Insurance Company. The learned Counsel for the complainant argued that if two mules were insured that cannot be without tag and the Insurance Company may be asked even today to inform the tag number of the other mule, if it can give but no positive reply was given. The Insurance Company has also filed the copy of the policy which is a joint policy in the name of several persons, in fact it appears that Insurance Company did not file the exact copy of the policy but it copied out the contents of some cover note and filed it. The copy of the policy has been filed by the complainant and this shows that only one mule was insured for Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand). It was the bounden duty of the Insurance Company to have proved that two mules were insured and not only one of the above amount. The learned Forum has given a detailed finding in this respect.

SO, we are of the opinion that the dead mule was insured with the appellant and the repudiation of the claim is clearly a deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. The learned Forum was perfectly justified in allowing the complaint. We need not interfere in the order passed by the learned Forum. This appeal has got no force and is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is hereby dismissed. The complaint is hereby allowed. Cost of the appeal shall be easy. Appeal dismissed.