Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 75 (UTT)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pingala Devi

2004-05-25

K.D.SHAHI, SURENDRA KUMAR

body2004
JUDGMENT Sri Surendra Kumar, Senior Member : This is an appeal against the order dated 22.12.2000 passed by the District Forum, Uttarkashi whereby the complaint of the complainant was allowed for' recovery of insured amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand), along with interest @12% payable from 01.01.1999 & cost of litigation of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) was also awarded. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant after taking a loan of Rs, 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) from Sahkari Bank, Bharmkhala purchased a buffalo which was insured with the opposite party No.2, insurance company for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) and tag No. OIC 252900/ 9494/2151 was affixed in the ear of the buffalo. On 01.01.1999, all of a sudden the buffalo died. Information as given to the insurance company through bank. Claim form was also submitted. But her claim W?\S repudiated. Therefore the complaint was filed. 3. The Sahkari Bank has alleged that there is no deficiency in service on its part and it has also filed its written statement in support of the case of the complainant. However the complaint has been allowed only against the insurance company. 4. The opposite party, insurance company filed written statement and admitted that the buffalo of the complainant was insured but denied the allegations regarding death postmortem and death certificate of the buffalo. The surveyor was appointed and he inquired from the villagers of the complainant, from Whom the surveyor came to know that the buffalo. which was insured, has not died and the complainant has filed her claim stating wrong facts. He also came to know that Smt. Pingala Devi purchased a buffalo in September 1998 after taking loan, which was black In colour and which died in January 1999. Smt. Pingala Devi purchased another buffalo, which she has sold and has filed her claim alleging that the buffalo has died. 5. Smt. Pingala Devi filed her affidavit in support of her complairit and also filed the affidavit of Sh. Chindriya, Kundan Lal and Ramesh, 6. The Learned Forum after taking the evidence of the parties and hearing them allowed the complaint. Against which order the present appeal has been filed. 7. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. The insurance is' admitted. Chindriya, Kundan Lal and Ramesh, 6. The Learned Forum after taking the evidence of the parties and hearing them allowed the complaint. Against which order the present appeal has been filed. 7. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. The insurance is' admitted. The only dispute is regarding the death of the insured buffalo the surveyor has reported that during investigation he found that the insured buffalo was different from the alleged dead buffalo. He alleged that Sh. Chindriya and Ramesh have reported that the buffalo of the complainant died in January - February. That buffalo was purchased some 5 or 6 months earlier from its death in September - October 1998. Before this, the complainant purchased buffalo after taking loan, which she has sold few months earlier. According to the surveyor, the complainant has not produced any certificate of postmortem. Therefore the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. 8. The surveyor Sh. Chiatanya Swarup filed his affidavit in support of his report alleging that he got the information about the death of the buffalo from the insurance company and he investigated the matter. He took the statement of the witnesses. He took the statement of husband of the complainant Sh. Kundan Lal. Chindriya and Ramesh. They have reported that in January - February the buffalo of the complainant died in the chain of Sh. Hukum Singh. That buffalo was purchased before 6 months of its death in September - October. The complainant sold the buffalo after few months. 9. Sh. Chindriya, Kundan Lal and Ramesh have filed their affidavits in support of Smt. Pingala Devi and the surveyor did not take their statements and they have not reported that the buffalo, which was purchased by the complainant after taking loan, has been sold by her. The complainant purchased one buffalo from Sh. Dinesh Lal in January - February 1997 and that buffalo has died. No other buffalo was purchased or sold by her. Sh. Chindriya, Kundan Lal and Ramesh have denied that they have given any such statement to the surveyor in their affidavits. The insurance company did not file affidavit of those witnesses on the basis of whose statement the claim was repudiated. To the contrary they filed affidavit before the Learned Forum that they have never given any such statement to the surveyor. The insurance company did not file affidavit of those witnesses on the basis of whose statement the claim was repudiated. To the contrary they filed affidavit before the Learned Forum that they have never given any such statement to the surveyor. Therefore the allegation of the insurance company is without any evidence. The complainant has produced the receipt showing that the buffalo was sold by Sh. Dinesh Lal to the complainant for a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - (Rupees Ten Thousand). The tag which was affixed in the ear of the buffalo was numbered OIC / 252900 / 9495 / 2151 and was insured on 08.03.1997. 10. Dr. S.N. Sachan identified the buffalo by the same tag number. It is therefore proved the buffalo which died was bearing the tag no. OIC / 252900 / 9495 / 2151, which was identified by the veterinary doctor. It is also clear that the buffalo died on 01.01.1999. 11. In view of what has been said above, the appellant was definitely deficient in its service in repudiating the claim of the complainant and' the Learned Forum was perfectly justified in allowing the complaint. 12. We do not find any force in this appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is hereby dismissed. Cost of this appeal shall be easy.