New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs MAHIMANAND

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 3.11.2000 passed by District Consumer Forum, Uttar Kashi in Complaint Case No. 33/2000.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant got his cow insured with the opposite party, THE New India Assurance Company Limited for a sum of Rs. 8,000/-. This amount was taken by the complainant on loan from State Bank of India. A tag was fixed on the ear of the cow. At the time of insurance the medical examination of the cow was also done. On 19.4.1998 the tiger killed the cow, the information of which was sent to the Insurance Company as well as State Bank of India. THEreafter the post-mortem of the cow was got done by the Veterinary Officer Gyansu, Uttra Kashi. THE claim papers were submitted to the Insurance Company. THE Insurance Company has repudiated the claim, hence the complaint was filed. The opposite party No. 1, the New India Assurance Company has contested the case and alleged that complainant has not submitted the tag, hence the death of the cow has not been confirmed.

The opposite party No. 2, State Bank of India has filed its written version alleging therein that after the receipt of the information of the death of the cow, the necessary papers were submitted to the Insurance Company.

THE learned District Forum, after considering the evidence on record, directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount of Rs. 8,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and Rs. 500/- as cost. Aggrieved against this order, the opposite party No. 1, the New India Assurance Co. Limited has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by learned District Consumer Forum.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant without issuing notice to the respondent. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that there was no tag on the ear of the cow and no tag was submitted with the claim form. According to the complainant that the tag was on the ear of the cow and the contention of the Insurance Company is wrong. A perusal of the file will go to show that the post-mortem examination of the cow was done on 19.4.1998 by the Veterinary Doctor who has written the tag number in the post-mortem examination report. If the number of the tag which was issued by the Insurance Company was written in the post-mortem examination report by the Doctor then it goes to show that the tag was intact at the time of the post-mortem examination otherwise the number of the tag would not have been mentioned by the Doctor. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Doctor has stated that there was no tag on the ear of the cow. This statement of Doctor cannot be relied upon in the face of fact that he himself has written the tag number in the post-mortem examination report. A perusal of copy of the original post-mortem examination report will go to show that the tag number has been clearly written in the post-mortem examination report, therefore, the evidence on record clearly proves that there was a tag on the ear of the cow and the post-mortem examination was conducted and the Insurance Company has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant. The complainant is, therefore, entitled to get the insured amount. The judgment and order of the learned District Forum are perfectly correct and require no interference. ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of the learned District Consumer Forum are confirmed. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal dismissed.