AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE opposite party New India Assurance Company Ltd. against which an award has been passed by the District Forum, is the appellant. THE complainant had her cow insured with the opposite party for a sum of Rs. 3.000/- on 31.3.1994. THE cow was killed by a panther or tiger on 26.7.1994 while, it was grazing. THE complainant informed the opposite party and made a claim. THE opposite party rejected the claim on the ground that the incident came under the exemption Clause No. 12 of the policy. Aggrieved by this, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the complaint was filed.
THE opposite party contested the matter contending that the incident happened in the forest area and therefore under Clause 12 of the policy the opposite party is exempted from payment of compensation. The District Forum found that it is not in dispute that me incident happened in the forest area but it has not been established that the incident happened beyond 2 kms. from the house of the complainant or the shed of the cow. As per Clause 12 the opposite party must establish that the incident happened in the forest area and also beyond 2 kms. away from the house of the complainant or the shed of the cow. They have not established the latter condition and therefore they are liable to pay the insurance amount. So holding, the District Forum passed an award directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- being the insurance value of the cow, with interest thereon @ 18% p.a. from 26.7.1994 till payment and also a sum of Rs. 500/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 300/- as costs.
We heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. There was no representation for the respondent. On a perusal of the relevant records, we find that it is not possible to sustain the order of the District Forum. Clause 12 in the policy reads as follows: "12. Any loss or damage to the insured cattle either directly or indirectly due to the attack of wild animals will not be entertained if it had happened beyond two kilometres from the insured''s shed or house and if it happened whilst grazing in Forest area".
A careful reading of this shows that the Insurance Company will not be liable in either case when the incident happened within forest area or when the incident happened beyond two kilometres away from the house or shed of the complainant. In this case, as pointed out by the District Forum itself, evidence shows that the incident happened within the forest area. That being the case, under Clause 12, the Insurance Company is not liable. We hold that the interpretation given by the District Forum for Clause 12 is not correct. In this respect. Maxwell''s "Interpretation of Statutes" may be referred to. In that book, at page 232 under the heading "AND" and "OR" it is stated as follows: "In ordinary usage, "and" is conjunctive and "or" disjunctive. But to carry out the intention of the Legislature it may be necessary to read "and" in place of the conjunction "or", and vice versa. The Disabled Soldiers Act, 1601, for example, in speaking of property to be employed for the maintenance of "sick and maimed soldiers", referred to soldiers who were either sick or maimed, and not only to those who were both".
IN the result, therefore, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismiss the complaint. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.