JUDGMENT 1. The appeal arises from the order dated 8.5.2002 passed in consumer case No. 85 of 2000 by the District Forum Pithoragarh, where-by the claim of complainant Sanjai Kumar was allowed against the appellant for the recovery of Rs. 12,000, along with interest as insurance money of the cow insured with the appellant. 2. The brief facts of the dispute are that the complainant Sanjai Kumar purchased a jercy cow for a sum of Rs 12000 after taking loan from the Bank. It was insured with the appellant for Rs 12,000 A policy was issued with no 22411 valid from 2.3.2000 to 1.3.2001. The purchase was made on 2.3.2000, the cow died on 14.3.2000, admittedly after 12 days within 15 days of the purchase. 3. There was a definite clause in the terms of the insurance "The company is not liable to pay the claim if death is due to disease occurring within, 15 days from the commencement of the risk. However death due to accident is excluded. Admittedly the cattle died within 15 days due to disease. Admittedly it did not die due to any accident. 4. All the facts of the case are admitted. The forum allowed the complaint, therefore the appeal. 5. According to the appellant the cow died within 15 days of the insurance as a result of illness, the insurance company is not liable. The forum in its judgment only observed that it does not agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the insurance company, it was not at all discussed why the only argument appears to have been given is that the insurance company insures the a cattle only after due medical. So what, if a cattle can not fall ill within 15 days of the medical? Admittedly the death was due to disease, admittedly the cow was hale and hearty on the date of the purchase, but it will not make a difference if it died within 15 days of the insurance due to disease. 6. The above clause was a specific provision of the insurance. Both the parties are bound by the terms of the policy. 7. In the appeal, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the policy holder was not informed of the terms and condition of the policy. 6. The above clause was a specific provision of the insurance. Both the parties are bound by the terms of the policy. 7. In the appeal, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the policy holder was not informed of the terms and condition of the policy. It was argued that the complainant is a poor hill side illiterate man and he did not know the terms and condition of the policy. We have gone through the complaint and the affidavit of the claimant. He did not say any where like this. To the contrary the. policy is no specifically mentioned in the complaint. The affidavit is also vebatum reproduction of the complaint. Then it does not lie in the mouth of the complainant to say that he did not know the terms of the policy or insurance. 8. It is clear that there is an exclusion clause in the terms of the policy. It was argued that it can be ignored, but the condition is not a superficialor minor condition to be ignored rather it was the main condition of the policy. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent referred the ruling report in 1998 (8) Supreme Court Cases 438 A Nazar v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. In this ruling the truck was carrying Rose Plant. There were three labourers as well on the truck without any payment, to which the truck insurance policy did not permit. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that since those three persons were not being carried for any fare those three persons were with the rose plant, therefore they will not come within the purview of the exclusion clause. The facts of this ruling are entirely different from the facts of the present case.' 10. The ruling reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court 1014 M/s. Modern Insulators Ltd. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. was also referred In its ruling it was held that the insurance is a matter of utmost good faith both the parties should disclose all the facts to each other. No body can disagree with the proposition of law, but where is the pleading in the complaint or the affidavit filed in evidence that the complainant did not know the terms and condition of the policy. No body can be allowed to argue a fact not at pleaded. No body can disagree with the proposition of law, but where is the pleading in the complaint or the affidavit filed in evidence that the complainant did not know the terms and condition of the policy. No body can be allowed to argue a fact not at pleaded. It was the duty of the complainant to have said like this and not the duty of the lawyer, to argue against the pleadings. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant also referred a number of rulings but all are irrelevant for the purposes of this appeal, therefore, are not being re, ferred herein. 12. From the discussions above it is clear that the finding of the forum is not correct. Since the cow died within 15 days of the insurance due to disease the claimant was entitled to no claim. The appeal deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. ORDER The appeal is hereby allowed. The findings and order passed by the forum on 8.5.2002 is hereby set aside. The complaint is hereby dismissed. However in the peculiar circumstances of the case both the parties shall bear their own costs of the forum as well as this commission.