Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 549 (UTT)

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. RAM SINGH

2006-09-26

IRSHAD HUSSAIN, LUXMI SINGH, SURENDRA KUMAR

body2006
JUDGMENT (Per: Mr. Surendra Kumar, Member): 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 11.11.2005 passed by the District Forum, Tehri, Garhwal, allowing the complaint and directing the appellant – insurer (hereinafter to be referred as “insurer”) to pay with in thirty days to the respondent No. 1 – complainant (hereinafter to be referred as “complainant”) the insured sum of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 500/- as costs of the litigation. 2. The facts in short giving rise to the case under hand are that in the year 1999-2000 the complainant purchased goats after obtaining loans of Rs. 25,000/- under Golden Jubilee Self – employment Scheme and the goats were stamped in the presence of veterinary doctor for the purpose of their identity and 31-45 number was allotted to the goats. The goats died due to an epidemic disease of respiratory system on 22.09.2000 and these were after postmortem buried in the presence of veterinary doctor. Out of the dead 20 goats, 15 were purchased by the complainant out of the loan amount of Rs. 25,000/-. Remaining 5 were purchased by him from his own source. The claim preferred by the complainant was repudiated by the insurer on the ground that tags were not found in the ears of the goats. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurer, complaint was filed before the District Forum. 3. The insurer filed written statement before the District Forum and resisted the complaint on the ground that as per the survey report, the tags were not found in the ear of the goats; the complainant did not cut the ears of the goats and therefore the identity of the goats was not established and as such the claim of the complainant was reputed. 4. The bank in its written statement admitted grant of loan of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant and that the goats purchased were insured with the insurer. Information was given by the complainant on 22.09.2000 regarding death of his goats due to some unknown disease. The complainant completed all the formalities for the claim. The bank then submitted all the documents to the insurer. 5. The District Forum on an appreciation of the material on record allowed the complaint per impugned order as stated above, against which the insurer has preferred the present appeal. 6. The complainant completed all the formalities for the claim. The bank then submitted all the documents to the insurer. 5. The District Forum on an appreciation of the material on record allowed the complaint per impugned order as stated above, against which the insurer has preferred the present appeal. 6. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully considered their submissions in the light of the material on record and the legal aspects of the case. The insurance is admitted. The only defence of the insurer is that the tags were not found in the ears of the goats and as such their identity was established and the complainant was not entitled to any relief. The complainant in para 2 of the complaint has specifically mentioned that the goats were stamped and numbers were allotted to the goats. It is not the case of the insurer that the goats were not stamped and tags were allotted to the goats. The insurer had appointed surveyor S.S. Negi & Company and their report dated 20.10.2000 is available on record (Paper Nos. 21 to 23). The surveyor at page 3 of his report has specifically mentioned that 20 goats of the complainant had died. Paper no. 24 is the claim form in which the colour of the goats is mentioned as black and their body mark number is mentioned as VC-31 to VC-45. In the claim and postmortem report (Paper No. 27), the details of the dead goats has been given and the colour of the dead goats has been given and the colour of the dead goats has also been mentioned in this report as black and their numbers has also been given which carefully tally with the numbers as mentioned in the claim form (Paper No. 24). 7. Tag is only for the identity of the animal. When the identity of the animal is otherwise established, non-production of the tag is immaterial. Even – otherwise, there is specific case of the complainant that the insured goats were not tagged and these were only stamped and there is no denial of the insurer against this specific allegation of the complainant. The surveyor appointed by the insurer had also certified the death of 20 goats of the complainant, out of which 15 were insured with the insurer. The surveyor appointed by the insurer had also certified the death of 20 goats of the complainant, out of which 15 were insured with the insurer. The survey report, postmortem report and other evidence available on record fully establish the death of the insured goats. Therefore, the insurer had made deficiency in service in repudiating the claim of the complainant on the ground that no tag was produced. 8. The District Forum has rightly found that there was deficiency in service on the part of the insurer in repudiating the claim of the complainant and it was justified in allowing the complaint to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- together with costs of litigation of Rs. 500/- and therefore the findings of the District Forum require no interference. There being no merit in this appeal, the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.