BRANCH MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. INDURANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant had availed a loan of Rs.4,000/- from Indian Overseas Bank under IRDB's Cattle Development Scheme. On the same date i. e. , on 9.5.1994, she added a sum of Rs.3,500/- to that and purchased a milching cow. The same had been insured with the 1st opposite party through the 2nd opposite party. The identification ear tag No. is 0929. The said cow was in good condition and was yielding 8 litres of milk per day. The cow had taken ill from 2.2.1997. The veterinary surgeon from Pattiveranpatty came and treated the cow. But on 13.2.1997 the cow died. It was informed to the 1st opposite party by telegram and the officials of the 1st opposite party came and made inquiries. The veterinary doctor of Pattiveeranpatti Government Veterinary Hospital conducted the post-mortem and has issued a certificate relating to the cow bearing ear tag No.0929 stating that the cow died on 13.2.1997 and sent the certificate to the 1st opposite party on 21.3.1997. The death of the cow was also reported by veterinary doctor Dr. Kanagaraj of Nilakottai, Government Veterinary Hospital to the 1st opposite party on 9.5.1997 with a certificate. The 1st opposite party stated that the certificate has been received only to report that the cow bearing ear tag No.0924 had died and there was no report of the death of the cow bearing ear tag No.0929. The Veterinary Surgeon at Nilakottai Government Veterinary Hospital, who was informed of the same, gave a letter under his letterhead stating that he had sent the certificate stating that the cow bearing ear tag No.0929 had died and he had by mistake mentioned the ear tag number as 0924 and he has regretted for the mistake and has recommended the disbursement of the insurance amount to the complainant. Another Doctor who treated the cow, Dr. Rajasekaran also has given a certificate stating that the cow bearing ear tag No.0929 belonged to the complainant. But in spite of that the complainant has not received any information nor any compensation from the 1st opposite party. To the notice also they have not replied. The complainant was eking out her livelihood only with the milching cow and on account of the death of the cow, they are without any means and they are now starving. Therefore, the complaint is laid for a direction to the opposite parties to disburse the insurance amount on the death of the cow and pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the loss of income, Rs.1,000/- towards expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony and for costs.

(2.) The 1st opposite party submitted a version alleging as follows: The allegations made in the complaint are not true. The 2nd opposite party Bank came with contract with them by taking 10 various policies relating to animals from 20.5.1994 to 19.5.1997. One among such policies, is the policy relating to the cow of the complainant Indurani, wife of Jayaraman, with ear tag No.0924. The 1st opposite party received a telegram from Indurani stating that the cow with ear tag No.0929 died. The claim form also related to the death of the cow bearing ear tag No.0929. The surgeon has also submitted a valuation certificate that the cow bearing ear tag No.0929 had died. The investigator appointed by the 1st opposite party investigated the claim and reported that the complainant Indurani was not having any cows in her house and that she had already sold her cows before six months. The cow bearing ear tag No.0929 was not at all insured with the 1st opposite party and hence they did not settle the claim. The cow with ear tag No.0924 alone was insured with them and if that cow had died they would have settled the claim. The report and the claim was only with regard to the cow with ear tag No.0929 which was not insured and, therefore, the 1st opposite party could not and did not settle the claim. After reporting the death of the cow bearing ear tag No.0929, and knowing that the complainant cannot make a claim therefor, the complainant has come forward with a false claim stating that the tag number was mentioned by mistake and has made the claim. So, the claim is an after-thought. After selling the cow with ear tag No.0929, the complainant has now come forward to get the claim amount. Hence, the 1st opposite party is not liable to make any payment.

(3.) The 2nd opposite party pleaded as follows in their version: The complaint as against the 2nd opposite party is not maintainable. All the milch animals have been insured with the 1st opposite party. The cow purchased by the complainant also has been insured with the 1st opposite party. No relief can be claimed against the 2nd opposite party.