Decided on March 18,2004

FANRU Respondents


- (1.)THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.8.2003 passed by the District Forum, Tehri, Garhwal whereby the complaint of the complainant was allowed for recovery of insured amount of Rs. 25,000/ - (Rupees twenty -five thousand) along with cost of litigation of Rs. 500/ - (Rupees five hundred).
(2.)THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased one mule after taking loan from Ganga Yamuna Gramin Bank, Thati. The mule was insured for Rs 25,000/ - (Rupees twenty -five thousand) with the Insurance Company. The mule was having tag No. 98/321907/733. On 1.2.2002, the mule died due to an accident. The complainant informed the Insurance Company about the death of the mule through the Bank. But the Insurance Company neither sent him the claim form, nor paid the insured amount and repudiated his claim. Therefore, he filed the complaint before the District Forum claiming the insured amount of Rs. 25,000/ - (Rupees twenty -five thousand) along with 12% interest and cost of litigation of Rs. 2,000/ - (Rupees two thousand) and also compensation for mental pain and agony of Rs. 10,000/ - (Rupees ten thousand).
(3.)THE opposite party filed written statement and alleged that the Bank through its letter dated 31.5.2002, only sent claim form, Panchnama and tag but did not send the post -mortem report of the mule. The full details of the insurance have also not been given. Therefore the complainant is not entitled to any compensation.
We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and gone through the records. Purchase of the mule is admitted. Its insurance is admitted. Death of the mule and every thing is admitted. In the proposal form dated 7.1.2000, the value of the mule is written as Rs. 25,000/ - (Rupees twenty -five thousand). In the appeal filed by the Insurance Company the tag No. of the said mule is given as 98/321907/733. The Insurance Company alleged that it has insured two mules for Rs. 25,000/ - (Rupees twenty -five thousand) but they have only identified the dead mule by above tag number. Even in the letter of the Bank dated 31.5.2002, there was no mention of two mules. In the letter of the Bank, it is clearly mentioned that claim form, Panchnama and tag are enclosed with this letter. The appellant alleged that the complainant has not filed the post -mortem report of the mule but it admitted that it received the claim form, Panchnama and tag of the dead mule. Tag of the mule is in itself the identification of the dead mule. In the medical report and the claim form, the doctor has also certified about the post -mortem report.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.