JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          The petitioner/complainant owned a buffalo which he had got insured with the respondent for Rs.20,000/-.  The said buffalo had an ear tag bearing no. B-05746.  The case of the complainant/petitioner is that the buffalo died due to illness on 05.11.2008 and the buffalo tag as well as the post mortem report, claim form etc. were given by him to one Siyaram, an agent of the insurance company.  Since the claim was not paid, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint. 

2.      The complaint was resisted by the insurer which denied having received any buffalo tag, claim form or other documents from the complainant.  It was further stated in the reply filed by the insurer that as per the agreement executed by them with registered Live Stock Development Board, on death of the animal, the insurer or its authorized representative was required to be informed.  The insurer/authorized representative was to then investigate the matter on the spot, take photographs and separate the ear tag of the animal         which the insured was not competent to remove.  It was also pointed out that as per condition no. 8 of the aforesaid agreement, immediate notice in writing was to be given in case of any illness or any injury to the animal.  The insured was also required to give sufficient and proper feed to the animal with water and shelter and safeguard the animal against loss or danger.  It was also stated that as per policy condition no.6, in the event of illness of the animal, the insured was required to immediately obtain the services of a qualified veterinary surgeon.  It was also alleged that as per condition no.8 of the insurance policy, on death of the animal, the insured was to give an opportunity of inspection of the carcass until unless expiry of at least 24 hours after notice to the insurer. 

3.      The District Forum, having ruled in favour of the complainant/petitioner, the insurer approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal.  Vide impugned order dated 04.01.2017, the State Commission allowed the said appeal and consequently, dismissed the complaint.  Being aggrieved, the complainant/petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition. 

4.      The case of the complainant as noted earlier is that the year tag of the buffalo as well as the claim form and post mortem report were delivered by him to Mr. Siyaram, authorized agent of the insurer.  There is absolutely no evidence of Mr. Siyaram being an authorized representative of the insurer.  In the absence of such an authorization, delivery of the buffalo tag, claim form etc. to him would be unauthorized and would not discharge the complainant of his obligation in this regard under the insurance policy taken by him.  Moreover, there is no documentary evidence of Mr. Siyaram having received the buffalo tag, claim form and post mortem report etc. from the complainant.  No affidavit of Mr. Siyaram was filed before the District Forum to prove that the buffalo tag, claim form and post mortem report etc. had been delivered to him.  Therefore, the insurer could not even have processed the claim lodged by the complainant. 

5.      As noted earlier, in terms of the insurance policy, immediate intimation of the death of the animal was required to be given to the insurer or its authorized representative.  They were to be given an opportunity to inspect the carcass of the animal for at least 24 hours. Since no such intimation was given to the insurer or to its Authorized Representative, the insurer did not get an opportunity to inspect the carcass and to verify as to whether the insured animal had died or some other animal had died.  Had the complainant/petitioner intimated the death of the animal to the insurer, its representative could have verified the identity of the dead animal on the basis of the ear tag.  Unless the opportunity to inspect the carcass of the animal is given, the ear tag number cannot be verified.  Consequently, it was not possible for the insurer to even verify the alleged death of the animal.  Moreover, as a result of the death of the buffalo not being informed to the petitioner, it did not get an opportunity to verify as to whether the complainant had observed all conditions with respect to the health of the animal or not.  The petitioner was thus denied valuable rights available to it in this regard.

6.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission.  The revision petition being devoid of any merits, is hereby dismissed.  Fee of the Amicus Curiae be paid as per rules.