NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. NARESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant purchased the buffalo after taking loan from Punjab National Bank. It was insured with the Insurance Company. It died on 27.12.1998. The complainant made the claim through the Bank. The claim was repudiated. Hence he filed the complaint. The complaint was allowed, hence this appeal.

(2.) IN this appeal it was argued that the health certificate has been filed which is of the date of 20.12.1995 while the cattle in question was purchased on 3.1.1996. Such a plea has also been taken in Para 5 of the affidavit of Sh. A.K. Narang. The Insurance Company insures the cattle. It should better know the procedure but as far as we know the Bank finances the loan after completion of all the formalities. When estimate is given, when health certificate of the cattle is produced, then only after being satisfied that the cattle is of good health and is not likely to immediately die and its proper value etc. has been ascertained, then only finances the loan and then the sale is done. Therefore, merely because the health certificate is of a week or 15 days later, it cannot be said that the cattle is different one. It was also argued that there is discrepancy in the statement of the witnesses and the complaint has alleged that the cattle was examined by doctor of Bhagwanpur but it was examined by some other doctor. All these discrepancies have been explained in the judgment of the learned Forum. The complainant is a hilly side little literate man. Such discrepancies are bound to occur. There is no dispute regarding the tag number etc. If some mistake has been committed in some paper, that will not discredit the case of the complainant. We have examined the entire evidence. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Forum except that the complaint has been allowed for the recovery of the insured amount along with interest and compensation. In view of the rulings Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Union of India, 2000 2 CPJ 1 ,Satelec Power Electronics v. NRDC, 2002 3 CPJ 124; and Rajpal Mahana v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2003 4 CPJ 90 the complainant cannot get both interest as well as compensation. The rate of interest is also on the higher side. This is not a housing construction or business loan, interest @ 10% shall be sufficient interest. Therefore, the order of payment of compensation of Rs. 3,000/ - is to be quashed. As regards the cost of litigation, that has rightly been awarded. The appeal is partly to be allowed and partly to be dismissed.