- (1.) THIS appeal was dismissed on account of absence of the learned Advocate for the appellant. But since the learned Advocate presented sufficient cause it was restored to file. That is how this appeal is taken up for admission.
(2.) THIS is complainant s appeal. It was the complainant s case before the learned Forum that his buffalo insured with the opponent Insurance Company through Mulsana Utpadak Sahkari Mandali died resulting into complainant preferring claim before the opponent Insurance Company through the concerned bank. It was the complainant s further case that the tag of the buffalo in question for the purpose of its identification as per the policy of insurance was lost and the complainant had an occasion to inform loss of tag to the Chairman/Secretary of the Society. The complainant had taken loan of Rs. 5,500 from the bank and had an occasion to repay the loan to the extent of Rs. 4,500. As the opponent Insurance Company did not pay the claim the complainant was required to file the complaint after serving notice through Advocate on 2.5.1996. The complaint was registered as complaint No. 101 of 1996. Opponent Insurance Company resisted the complaint inter alia on the ground that the complaint cannot be entertained for the reasons that there was no tag on the body of the buffalo for which claim was preferred and identification of the buffalo differed from the identification stated in the certificate of health issued at the time of taking of insurance. The learned Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant failed to set out the particulars with regard to loss of tag and intimation of loss of tag as also particulars of death of buffalo in question. These particulars inter alia include the respective dates. The learned Forum followed the settled principle of law with regard to award of claim namely where there is no tag there is no indemnification of the buffalo or the animal which is insured with the concerned Insurance Company. Hence, no claim could be awarded where there is no tag. That is how the learned Forum dismissed the complaint by order dated 5.3.2005. We have heard the learned Advocate for the original complainant at length. We have gone through the impugned order. We have gone through the decision of the Uttaranchal Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Surtu and Another, 2004 4 CPJ 158. That was a case of animal claim with regard to goats that died due to eating of poisonous grass. In that case claim was repudiated on account of absence of ear tags in the ears of the goats. However, tag numbers were specifically mentioned by doctor in claim Form and Panchayatnama signed by the Panchayat was produced in support of the claim. Thus, the identity of the insured goats was established by documentary evidence in that case. In the present case the identity of the buffalo is not only established on account of absence of tag but it has also not been established on account of the description of the buffalo.
(3.) WE have also gone through another decision of the same State Commission in the case of Govind Singh Rana v. New India Assurance Company Limited, 2005 1 CPJ 334. The State Commission referred to the investigation report which indicated that insured mare was established to have died and absence of tag did not clinch the issue. This decision will not hold the case of the complainant in the present case. There is one more decision of the same Commission in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Kitab singh, 2005 1 CPJ 412. In that case, veterinary doctor and the Surveyor identified the disputed animal. Therefore, the identity of the insured animal could not be disputed even if there was no tag. In the present case apart from absence of tag, even the description of the buffalo was not tallying. Besides, the complainant approached the learned Forum without setting out full particulars both with regard to loss of tag as well as with regard to the death of the buffalo. It is not understandable how even after ascertainment of the date of loss of tag namely 25.9.1992, the complainant remained silent for a period of around three years without getting it noted before the opponent Insurance Company. Merely because the bank is stated to have intimated the Insurance Company, it cannot be presumed that loss of tag was taken note of by the Insurance Company. Had the Insurance Company taken note of the lost tag well in time, it could have re -tagged the buffalo. The period of passage of three years clearly appears to have not been explained by the complainant. Thus, the identity of the insured buffalo with the buffalo who died is highly suspicious. In the present case, the complainant having gone before the learned Forum without particulars and having had a searching inquiry into the matter, has not been able to establish the identity of the buffalo in question. In that view of the matter, we have no other alternative except to reject the appeal at the stage of admission. Order accordingly.;