New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Kitab Singh

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 26.7.2000 passed by the District Forum, Uttarkashi whereby the complaint of the complainant was allowed for a sum of Rs. 9,000/- (Rupees nine thousand) as compensation along with interest @ 12% and cost of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred).

THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant after taking loan of Rs. 18,000/- (Rupees eighteen thousand) from District Co-operative Bank, O.P. No. 1 purchased two mules. Both the mules were insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. O.P. No. 2. During the insured period, on 22.1.1998 his one mule died. His tag No. was 680. He was insured for the period 26.8.1997 to 25.8.1998. THE complainant informed about the death of his mule to both the opposite parties and completed all the formalities to get the claim but the appellant Insurance Company claim did not pay anything. On 24.11.1998, a notice was sent to the Insurance Company but it did not care to reply the same. THErefore, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. The O.P. No. 1 District Co-operative Bank filed written statement and they have no responsibility to pay the claim and alleged that this is the responsibility of the Insurance Company. The appellant, Insurance Company filed its written statement and admitted that the mule was insured for the period from 26.8.1997 to 25.8.2000 but alleged that there was no tag on the ear of the mule. It is also alleged that after receiving the report of the Surveyor, the claim of the complainant was not found justified and, therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated and they have informed the complainant through the bank about repudiation of the claim on 22.10.1998.

The report of the Surveyor dated 22.8.1998 was also filed in which it is clearly mentioned that there was tag on the ear of the mule. The Surveyor and the Veterinary Doctor identified the dead mule as his colour black. Therefore, it is clear that the Surveyor identified the disputed mule and the doctor, it was the same mule which was insured by the appellant. The Gram Pradhan also identified the mule.

THE insurance is admitted, the death of the mule is admitted, colour, identification and everything is admitted. Now there is no doubt about the identification of the dead mule. THE learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the doctor stated that at the time of his visit, the ear of the mule was cut. THE doctor gave the statement on his memory. No body will have such a memory to remember about the status of each mule, which he examined before 7 months. At least it is not said that the complainant had any third mule. It is not said that the two mules were there at the house of the complainant at the time of survey. If identity of the mule is established, the absence of ear is immaterial. The learned Forum has rightly allowed the complaint. We find no ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Forum. This appeal has got no force and is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is hereby dismissed. Cost of the appeal shall be easy. Appeal dismissed.