PUNJAB AND SIND BANK Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 16.6.2000 passed by the District Forum, Uttarkashi whereby the complaint of the complainant for the compensation of insured amount was allowed.

(2.) The complainant filed a complaint before the learned Forum that he has purchased two mules at the rate of Rs.15,000/- each. One mule died on 11.9.1998 regarding which the claim petition is said to be pending with the Insurance Company on the date of the present claim. The other mule also died on 18.3.1999 in the jungle. The tag of the first mule was 321900/35771 and the tag number of the present disputed mule was 321900/35779. The dispute is regarding the mule which died on 18.3.1999 only. Regarding this mule, he submitted the claim, but it was repudiated. Hence, the claim petition. The Insurance Company filed a written statement and took a number of pleas and alleged that the tag was not found in the ear of the mule of the complainant. The colour of the mule was also different and the post-mortem was made by a doctor of different jurisdiction. Therefore, the claim is liable to be rejected. The learned Forum allowed the claim petition against which order the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and gone through the records. The rejection of the claim by the Insurance Company appears primarily on the basis of the survey report by the Surveyor. The complainant has got two mules. Both died one by one and we are not aware what happened with the first claim. But admittedly, there was no third mule of the complainant. Both the mules were insured. It cannot be easily argued that the mule of some other person died. The complainant placed that mule and gave the tag of his mule only to claim compensation. There is no case, at least, no survey report that the other mule of the complainant is still alive. If the Surveyor had made a fair and bona fide survey, he should have specifically reported that the disputed other mule of the complainant is alive or has been sent somewhere or has been kept in hiding to claim a false compensation from the Insurance Company. But this report of the Surveyor is that a mule of the complainant was dead but with different number. It is true that the Vetenary doctor is not a local doctor but who examined is said to be a doctor having his hospital at the distance of 20 kms. , but, there is specific case of the complainant that the local Vetenary doctor was not available and the dead body of the mule cannot be kept for a number of days to wait for the doctor. At least, it cannot be said that the Vetenary doctor who had come from far of place was, in any way, related with the complainant or that he had given totally a false report. The doctor has reported the same tag number. In his post-mortem report, he nowhere stated that the tag was kept somewhere else. But, when the Branch Manager came into light, the report became that the tag was not in the ear, it has been tagged after the death. There is no reason for the complainant to have kept the tag somewhere else and to tag in the ear of the mule after his death. The tag was there. It was recovered by the doctor as well as by the Insurance Company. There were two mules only. These illiterate and hilly side people are not very much conversant with these formalities and if the learned Forum has given a discretion and benefit of this evidence of the complainant, it cannot be said that the judgment is given under perversity. The report of the Surveyor, statement of the complainant recorded by the Surveyor may not support the appellant, but the facts and circumstances of the case fully prove that there was death of the other mule of the complainant. It was insured and the claim was allowed only for that mule. It ought to have been allowed and it was rightly allowed by the Forum. This appeal has got no force and is to be dismissed. ORDER the appeal is hereby dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, cost of the appeal shall be easy. Appeal dismissed.