United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs NARANBHAI N. CHAUDHARI

THIS appeal from order dated 28.4.2003 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gandhinagar in Complaint No. 50 of 2002, directing the opponent Insurance Company to pay to the complainant indemnity amount of Rs. 10,000/- on account of death of insured cow, with 9% interest from the date of complaint till payment, compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,000/- and cost in the sum of Rs. 1,500/-.

WE have heard the learned Advocate appearing for the original opponent Insurance Company, now the appellant. No one is present for the original complainant. The opponent Insurance Company resisted the complaint on the ground that if the insured cattle died within 15 days from the commencement of the risk, the insured would not be entitled to the amount of insurance. In this case, receipt dated 17.1.2000 came to be canvassed. We have seen the xerox copy of that receipt. It is not in dispute that this was a renewal group cattle insurance through the concerned banking institution. Before that insurance period was up to 31.12.1999. Even in the xerox copy of the aforesaid receipt the expiry date is stated to be December, 30, 2004. It is not in dispute that the premium for the whole of the year was taken by the opponent Insurance Company. Therefore, viewing the matter from any of the aforesaid dates of original insurance as well as the renewal, the condition of 15 days waiting period clause would not be applicable to the present case as the cattle died on 25.1.2000 i.e., after the period of 26 days from the date of expiry of the earlier insurance. If it was not a renewal insurance, expiry date would not have been mentioned to be December 2002. In our considered opinion, it would be hyper-technical to apply the aforesaid clause to deny the legitimate claim of the consumer. We have gone through the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Biman Krishna Bose v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, reported in III (2001) CPJ 10 (SC)=V (2001) SLT 558=(2001) 6 SCC p. 477, holding that renewal of a policy would mean a repetition of the original policy and renewed policy is extension in identical terms from a different date. It is a new contract but on the same terms and conditions as the original policy unless the original policy provides otherwise. In the present case we do not have the original policy for our perusal. However, even if there was such a clause in the original policy, that period had already expired in the year 1999 and, therefore, that cannot be repeated in the renewal policy, in view of usage of the words ''first fifteen days''. Viewing the matter from any angle, the legitimate claim of the consumer cannot be denied. In our considered opinion, decision of the Apex Court does not appear to have expressed any ratio otherwise.

The defence of the opponent Company was not mala fide before the learned Forum. It did not go before the learned Forum with any false representation of facts. Hence, there was no scope for awarding compensation on the head of mental agony in the sum of Rs. 3,000/-. We, therefore, purpose to set aside that part of the order. In view of what is stated above, we pass following order. ORDER Impugned order dated 28.4.2003 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gandhinagar in Complaint No. 50 of 2002 is hereby maintained except with regard to order of payment of compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,000/- which part of the order shall stand set aside. This appeal is accordingly partly allowed with no further order as to costs. 2. The opponent Insurance Company is stated to have deposited Rs. 8,000/- in this Commission. Office to verify the amount and pay the same to the complainant by A/c. Payee cheque after passage of six weeks from today. Balance amount shall be paid by the opponent Insurance Company to the complainant within eight weeks from today. Appeal partly allowed.