UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. THILAKAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein was the opposite party before the Forum below in OP No. A.318/2002. The aforesaid complaint was preferred by the respondent as complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/opposite party in not issuing the claim form for facilitating the complainant to put forward the insurance claim with respect to the insured cow. It is the respondent/complainant that she insured her cow with the opposite party United India Insurance Company and there was a valid insurance policy for the said cow for the period from 14.7.2000 to 13.7.2003 and during the existence of the said policy the insured cow contracted epidemic disease and the cow succumbed to the said disease on 2.7.2002. The death of the cow was confirmed by local Veterinary Surgeon and after examination issued death certificate. The complainant informed the matter to the opposite party; but they were reluctant to inspect the dead cow or to issue the claim form. So the complainant filed the complaint against the opposite party claiming insurance amount of Rs. 10,000. The opposite party Insurance Company entered appearance and totally denied the allegation regarding deficiency in service. It was also contended that the complainant did not approach the opposite party for claim form and that the Insurance Company was not intimated about the death of the insured cow. Thus, the opposite party requested for dismissal of the complaint.

(2.) BEFORE the Forum below the complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A5 documents were also marked on her side. From the side of the Insurance Company its officer was examined as RW1. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below accepted the case of the complainant and thereby passed the impugned order directing the opposite party Insurance Company to pay the insured amount of Rs. 10,000 to the complainant with cost of Rs. 250. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is preferred by the opposite party in OP.A. 318/02.

(3.) WHEN this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the respondent/complainant. We heard the learned Counsel for appellant/opposite party. He submitted his arguments based on ground urged in the appeal memorandum. He argued for the position that there is nothing on record to show that the complainant approached the opposite party for getting the claim form or that the complainant intimated the opposite party regarding the death of the insured cow. Thus, the appellant submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/ opposite party Insurance Company. The appellant prayed for quashing the impugned order passed by the Forum below. The points that arise for consideration are: