New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs G.R. HEGDE

THIS appeal by the opp. party-Insurance Company is directed against the order dated 10.4.1992 passed by the District Forum, Bangalore, in Complaint No. 671/91, directing the opposite party to pay insured sum of Rs. 5,000/- with interest thereon to the complainant. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows : - 1. The Complainant purchased a cow on obtaining loan from the Bank and insured the said cow with the opposite party for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on 20.7.1987. The Insurance Policy is at Ex. P1. The said cow expired on 26.5.1988. The Complainant made claim for the insured sum with the opposite party as per Ex. P2. The opposite party, instead of making the payment of the said amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the Complainant gave a cheque for a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to the Complainant, which he returned to opposite party, in full settlement of the claim. The Complainant, thereafter, made a complaint seeking the assured amount of Rs. 5,000/- from the opposite party.

THE opposite party filed its version and admitted the fact that the cow was insured by the Complainant with it on 20.7.1987 for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as averred by the Complainant. It denied the liability of the company on the ground that the claim made by the Complainant was a fraudulent claim. We have called for the records and received. We have also heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent

It is material on record that in Ex. PI, Insurance Policy a brand mark of the said cow has been given as NIA 2320/16469, that is the cow that was insured was given the said brand number. On the death of the cow, the Complainant made a claim as per Ex. P2, wherein he was given the brand number of the cow as NIA 2320/ 16469, that is the same brand number that was given in the Insurance Policy Ex. PI. The postmortem report of the said cow has been produced as per Ex. P3. The said report shows that the post-mortem that was held by the veterinary doctor over the dead body of the said cow, the brand number of which was NIA 2320/16469. Therefore, it is clear, that the cow that was insured with the opposite party by the Complainant was the same cow which died and on the dead body of which a post-mortem as per Ex. P3 was held by the veterinary doctor.

THE opposite party-the appellant has not placed any material to rebut this material placed on record by the Complainant. The District Forum on assessing and considering the material placed on record by the Complainant, held that the opposite party-appellant committed deficiency of service and directed the opposite party to make the payment of the insured amount to the Complainant.

HAVING regard to these facts and in the circumstances of the case, we do not find any ground to interfere in the order recorded by the District Forum. In the result, therefore, this appeal fails and it is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear and pay their own costs. Appeal dismissed.