New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Sher Singh

THIS is an appeal by the Insurance Company against the judgment and order dated 21.6.2000 passed by the District Forum, Uttarkashi whereby a compensation of Rs. 12,000/- with interest and Rs. 500/- as cost of litigation was allowed in favour of the complainant Shri Sher Singh.

THE complainant Shri Sher Singh has filed the complaint that in 1997-98 he has purchased two mules at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- each taking a loan of Rs. 24,000/- from the Bank. THE mule was insured and a tag was placed in the ear. It is said that mule with tag No. 36413 died due to falling in Nala. Information was given to the Bank and a claim was lodged with the Insurance Company. It was repudiated, hence the complaint was filed. The Insurance Company filed a written statement and alleged that there was no tag in the ear of the deceased mule and, therefore, the claimant was not entitled to any compensation. The learned Forum in its judgment held that the Surveyor visited this spot after about one year, therefore, his report is not reliable. On the basis of the affidavit of Shri Sher Singh and Dr. Surender Singh, Forum has allowed the claim. However, the Forum has found that before the inquiry by the doctor, himself, the tag of the cattle was removed by the complainant because anybody could have taken the tag or it could have been eaten by wild animals. It is said that doctor has reported that the tag was there in the ear and the Forum allowed the compensation. Being aggrieved by that order, the present appeal has been filed.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. According to the Surveyor, the deceased cattle was not at all insured. But it has been changed. It has came to the conclusion because there was no tag in the ear of the cattle. Dr. Surender Singh in his report, had specifically told that the ear of the deceased cattle has been cut down and tag was there in the said cut portion. He has, further reported under signature that the tag was a fresh one, it was shining. This report will go to show that a fresh tag was put in the cut portion to show that the mule had a tag. The doctor has, further given the report that there was no tag in the ear earlier. Shri Surender Singh has also filed an affidavit to this effect. The finding of the learned Forum cannot be said to be correct that the ear could have been eaten by wild animals or could have been removed by the villagers. Therefore, it was cut away by the complainant. Instead of cutting away the ear and placing there a new tag, the complainant could have very well kept the deceased cattle. Itself, in some room or some other place so that it may not have been eaten by animals or could have been removed by any villager. In the agreement of the insurance, itself, it is specific that if the tag has been removed, the Insurance Company is not bound to pay any compensation of insured amount.

EARLIER the respondent appeared on 24.10.2002. He came, filed Vakalatnama and thereafter he became absent. He came on 28.1.2003, 3.3.2003, 4.4.2003 and on each date, he asked for time. On 22.4.2003 he became absent and date of 26.5.2003 was fixed. On 26.5.2003 he did not appear. It appears that looking the falsehood of the claim and also the affidavit of the doctor against him, he did not prefer to contest and waste any further time. In our view, the judgment as given by the learned Forum is not correct. The appeal is fit to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. ORDER The appeal is hereby allowed. The judgment and order dated 21.6.2000 passed by the learned District Forum is hereby set aside. The complaint is hereby dismissed. However, cost throughout shall be easy. Appeal allowed. C