RAJKUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , arising out of the order dated 12.5.2004, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'district Forum') dismissing the complaint.

(2.) Brief facts as averred in the complaint are that the complainant Rajkumar Agarwal is a dairy owner and he purchased 13 cows for Rs.20,000 each with the loan obtained from the State Bank of India. Two cows bearing ear tag Nos. NIA 21515 and NIA 17282 were included in the aforesaid cattle and were insured for Rs.20,000 each. The cow bearing tag No.21515 died on 20.9.2002 and the other cow beairng tag No.17282 died on 11.10.2002. It is averred that the paper relating to the treatment of the cows, post-mortem report and Panchnama was given to the Bank, respondent No.2 in original and acknowledgement obtained. However, the respondent insurer repudiated the complainant's claim on the ground that the death of the cattle and their insurance is doubtful.

(3.) O. P. No.1 insurer resisted the complaint denying all the averments of the complainant regarding deficiency in service. It was averred in the written version that a livestock insurance policy No.540300/47/02/00314 was issued in favour of Rajkumar Agarwal the appellant for the period from 8.7.2002 to 7.7.2003. As per terms of the policy the complainant was under an obligation to give immediate notice to the insurer regarding illness and/or death of the cattle and to afford the insurer an opportunity to inspect the carcass by not removing or cutting or parting with it to enable the insuer to verify the identity of the animal. It was further averred that the cows in question were not insured by them and that no intimation regarding the illness of cattle or their death was furnished to them. Thus, the insurer was deprived of the opportunity to verify the identity of the cattle. This is violation of policy condition Nos.4 and 7. It was further averred that the tag Nos. have not been mentioned in the treatment papers.