Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 242 (UTT)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Prasad

2003-11-03

K.D.SHAHI, LUXMI SINGH, SURENDRA KUMAR

body2003
ORDER K.D. Shahi, Chairman- The insured mule of the complainant died. He lodged the complaint for Rs.12,500/- with the Insurance Company. It was repudiated on technical ground. The complainant filed the complaint before the learned Forum. It was allowed. 2. Being aggrieved by this order the present appeal has been filed. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. The insurance is admitted. The death of the mule is admitted. It is said that it was not revealed by which disease the mule died. The doctor has written the disease in the post-mortem report. When the death is admitted, disease is immaterial. 4. It is said that the identity of the mule could not be established. Its colour is different. But on perusal of the records it is clear that the mule, which was insured, was of brown colour. The mule, which died, was also of the brown colour. 5. The doctor who prepared the post-mortem report has reported the Tag No. 35366. He did not report that it was not in the ear of the mule. But on the basis of the report of an alleged expert Dr. B.S. Rana it was said that it was not tagged with the ear, it was shining and it was a new one. Sh. B.S. Rana appears to be retired Veterinary Officer whereas the doctor who has done the post-mortem is also a Veterinary Doctor. It is clear that the said expert has never inspected the died mule. The mule died on 2.9.2000. On the basis of papers, the doctor has given the report long after, date not legible. His report cannot get precedence over the report of the doctor who had done the post-mortem. Even otherwise it appears that this alleged expert had been engaged by the Insurance Company only to report that tag has not been tagged in the ear. He has given similar report in the case of Smt. Ashrafi Devi, which was originally filed with the memorandum of the appeal, but again with an application the appellant filed the report of the mule of the complainant. Both the reports are similar. 6. We find that there is no force in the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is hereby dismissed. Cost of the appeal shall be easy. Appeal dismissed.