28-08-2015 - The reasons for delay in disposal of this appeal can be seen from the order sheets.

Due to long and uncertain period of absence of the Members, Single Member bench of President is functioning in their absence, in view of the order of Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 4434 of 2014, in the matter of Mr. Netaji Surrendra Mohan Nayyar -vs- Citibank; and the judgement passed by Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the W.P. (C) No. 30939 of 2010 (N) P.K. Jose -vs- M. Aby & ors.

2.       Inspite of fixing this case for passing ex-parte order, nobody appears on behalf of the Respondent-complainant.

          It appears that nobody is appearing in this case on behalf of respondent from 9.5.2012.

3.       Heard Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the O.P.-Appellant- (for short Insurance Company) and perused the records.

4.       On being satisfied with the grounds, the delay of about 52 days in filing this appeal is condoned.      

5.       Mr.Manish Kumar submitted that the Insurance Company was informed on 10.12.2007 about loss of Ear Tag of the insured cow and when the representative of the Company went to replace the Ear Tag on 20.12.2007, he was informed that the cow had died on 15.12.2007. He submitted that the complainant did not inform the Insurance Company immediately on death of the cow on the ground that he was out of station, whereas from the letter dated 27.12.2007 written to the veterinary surgeon, who conducted the postmortem, and the endorsement made thereon, it will appear that the complainant was present at the time of postmortem. He submitted that the Insurance Company had no chance to verify the carcass and confirm whether the insured cow had died or not. He relied on  the order dated 1.11.2013 passed  in F.A. No. 141 of 2009, by Hon’ble National Commission in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ram Avtar.

6.       The learned District Forum allowed the complaint interalia holding that the complainant gave sufficient explanation for not informing the Insurance Company regarding the death of the cow, on the date of death i.e. 15.12.2007.

7.       It appears that the complainant informed regarding loss of Ear Tag of the insured cow, but the representative of the Insurance Company came with the new Tag after a delay of about 10 days i.e. on 20.12.2007. In the meantime the cow had died.

8.       After hearing Mr. Manish Kumar at length and going through the records, it appears that there was some latches on the part of the complainant in informing the Insurance Company about the death of the cow immediately. At the same time there was latches on the part of the Insurance Company also in sending the New Tag after a delay of about 10 days.

9.       The learned District Forum directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs. 25,750/- the sum insured, Rs. 3000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,250/- as litigation cost within three months of the order, failing which, the complainant was entitled to realize the same through process of law.

10.     Keeping in view the amount involved and to balance the equity,  I direct the appellant-Insurance Company to pay Rs. 25,750/- to the complainant within six weeks from today, failing which, it will have to pay the total amount awarded by the learned District Forum i.e. Rs. 30,000/-

With these observations and directions, these appeal stands disposed off.

     Let the statutory amount be returned to the appellant, within six months.

               Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.

              Ranchi,

              Dated:- 28-08-2015