ORDER

(Per: Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member):

This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been preferred by appellant-opposite party No. 1 against the order dated 27.04.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 284 of 2008, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant-opposite party No. 1 to pay insured amount of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant, within one month from the date of orders.

2.       Briefly stated the facts of the case, as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that complainant had purchased a buffalo, which was insured with the opposite party No. 1-The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.  The said buffalo was insured for a sum of Rs. 15,000/-.  On 11.03.2008, the said buffalo has died. The loanee bank and Veterinary Doctor was informed about the death of said buffalo. Veterinary Doctor has conducted post-mortem of the said buffalo.  The opposite party No. 1-insurance company was also intimated about the death of said buffalo and prayed to settle the claim, but the opposite party did not settle the claim of the complainant, therefore, alleging deficiency in service the complainant has filed a consumer complaint against the opposite parties before the District Forum, Haridwar.

3.       The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.-opposite party No. 1 has filed written statement before the District Forum and accepted that the deceased buffalo was insured by the answering opposite party.  The Oriental Bank of Commerce, Libberheri, Haridwar-opposite party No. 2 had insured 18 buffalos from the answering opposite party. Every insured buffalo was tagged, as it is mandatory process and allotted tag consist a unique number to identify the animal. But the said buffalo, as per the insurance policy, was not tagged at all and, hence, it is evident that the said buffalo was not insured. It was difficult to the insurance company to identify an animal which was not tagged, so, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated on the basis of “No Tag No Claim”. According to the complainant the post-mortem of the animal was conducted by Veterinary Doctor, who was not made necessary part.  A report made by Veterinary Doctor, is not a public document, so it cannot be accepted as an evidence because for the post-mortem certain fee has to be deposited to the Government, which was not paid by the complainant.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party.

4.       The Oriental Bank of Commerce-opposite party No. 2 has filed written statement before the District Forum and stated that the answering opposite party is only a performa party and no relief has been sought against them and as such the claim petition is liable to be dismissed against the answering opposite party.

5.       The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 27.04.2010 in the above terms.  Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party No. 1-insurnace company has filed the present appeal.

6.       We have heard Sh. M.K. Kohli, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sh. Deepak Ahluwalia, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and have gone through the entire record of the District Forum and have also perused the record.  None has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1.

7.       There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant-respondent No. 2 had insured her buffalo with the opposite party No. 1-appellant.  The main dispute is that whether the deceased buffalo was one of the insured or not?

8.       Learned counsel for the appellant has stated before this Commission that after receiving the intimation regarding death of the buffalo of the respondent No. 1, the insurance company had appointed the investigator, who visited the site and recorded the statement of respondent No. 1 as well as other villagers, wherein they have stated that the said buffalo was not carrying any tag and as such the identity of the buffalo was not established. The respondent No. 1 has herself admitted in her statement that no tag was pierced in the animal and, as such on the basis of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the claim was repudiated.

9.       The insurance company-appellant has filed the surveyor’s affidavit, wherein the surveyor has stated that he has enquired the President, Secretary and Members of Self Help Group of which the complainant-respondent No. 1 is also a member.  The members of this group have informed that there was no tag in the ear of the deceased buffalo.

10.     After perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the deceased buffalo was insured by the appellant-insurance company vide document at Paper No. 14/4 on the District Forum’s record. The main argument of the appellant-insurance company was based on surveyor’s report.  The surveyor visited the spot and relied on the information what other peoples were talking.  He heard that the people talking that there was no tag on the ear of the said buffalo.  However, there is no evidence in writing of those people, who informed surveyor that there was no tag in the ear of deceased buffalo. The surveyor visited the spot on 21.05.2008, i.e. after two months from the date of death of the said buffalo. On the other hand, the post-mortem of the deceased buffalo was conducted on 12.03.2008 at about 10.00a.m. within 24 hours of death of insured buffalo. Veterinary Doctor has reported that the said buffalo was tagged, as is evident from post-mortem report at Paper No. 5/4 on the District Forum’s record.  As per the agreement and terms & conditions of the insurance policy, the insurance company-appellant was not liable to pay compensation in absence of ear tag.  In the present case, the Veterinary Doctor has certified on post-mortem report that he knows the said buffalo who was insured. At the time of death, the buffalo was bearing ear tag No. GHZ/34131.  Veterinary doctor is a Government employee.  His report has an authenticity.  We cannot discard post-mortem report. 

11.     For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed. Impugned judgment and order dated 27.04.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 284 of 2008 is hereby confirmed.