National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs HARBANS SINGH

THE revision petitioner is National Insurance Co. Ltd. who is aggrieved by the order of the State Commission dated 23.8.2002 in Appeal No. 607 wherein the complainant/present respondent Mr. Harbans Singh''s complaint which was allowed by the District Forum was further modified in the appeal by the revision petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the revision petition is filed here.

BRIEF facts of the case are as follows : The respondent Shri Harbans Singh insured his horse for Rs. 2,50,000/- for the period 31.10.1997 to 30.10.1998 by taking a policy from the revision petitioners. The horse unfortunately died on 16.10.1998. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that the complainant was liable to get the dead body of the horse physically verified before burying the same which he failed to do and that intimation about the death of the horse was given only five days after the event. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint and ordered payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- with 18% interest and awarded cost of Rs. 2,000/-. The appeal preferred by the Insurance Company was dismissed by the State Commission with modification of reducing the rate of interest to 9%. The Insurance Company is in revision before us.

The arguments taken before us by the revision petitioners are as follows : (a) that the respondent did not furnish the claim form or claim particulars in spite of the Insurance Company''s letter dated 3.11.1998; (b) that the investigations made by one Dr. Vinod Kumar and one Mr. Desh Raj Sharma, a retired police officer have indicated that the claim is not genuine because the statements of the insured and his neighbours were contradictory; (c) that the insured himself indicated the value of the horse in the claim form as Rs. 1,00,000/-; (d) that according to the terms of the Insurance Policy, either the insured value or its market price at the time of loss whichever is less shall be paid; (e) that the liability of the Insurance Company is only limited to 80% of such value which would work out only to Rs. 80,000/-; (f) that there was no delay on their part because investigator''s report was available only on 19.3.1999 and within three days the complainants rushed with his complaint to the District Forum.

WE find that the District Forum has passed a very detailed and well reasoned order after examining all the above claims of the present revision petitioners. In fact it is the reports of the two Investigators which are sketchy and contradictory. One of the Investigators, Dr. Vinod Kumar himself gave a Health Certificate for the horse at the time of taking out the Insurance Policy. But in his investigation report subsequent to death of the horse, he quotes witnesses saying that the horse died a year and a half ago. There is a clear report from Dr. Karanjit Singh who conducted the post-mortem of the dead horse. This post-mortem certificate is dated 3.11.1998. As regards the delay of five days in intimating about the death of the horse, it has clearly come on record that the insurance offices were closed during the period because of public holidays. The insured value is Rs. 2,50,000/-. The argument of the revision petitioner that it is inflated price cannot be accepted when they themselves accepted the price earlier. The claim has been restricted to 80% of its value. The documents brought on record do not show any condition that the insurance claim would be restricted to the value insured of the market price whichever is lower. WE, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with the well reasoned order of the State Commission. In view of what is discussed above, we do not find it a fit case for us to exercise our revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Revision Petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.