An insurance company cannot repudiate a claim on the ground of non-submission of ear tag if the insurance company was not informed about the requirement of ear tag.

Mr. Justice S. Parvatha Rao, President — The 2nd opposite party in O.P. No. 259/1996 questions the order of the East Godavari District Forum in that O.P. dated 3.4.1998 in this appeal. The complainant in the O.P. is the 1st respondent in this appeal and the 1st opposite party in the O.P. i.e. New India Assurance Company is the 2nd respondent in this appeal. The case of the complainant was that he purchased a she-buffaloe on 9.2.1994 through the appellant for a sum of Rs. 5,100/- and that she, alongwith another she buffaloe that was also purchased by the complainant through the appellant and four other she-buffaloes were insured by the appellant Society with the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company under a Livestock Policy Bearing No. 47611307 for the period from 16.2.1994 to 15.2.1995. Each of these six she-buffaloes were insured for a sum of Rs. 5,100/-. The description of the she-buffaloes and the ear tag numbers were given in the Schedule attached to the policy. The animal in question was given Tag No. 32725 which was later corrected to 32735. It is the admitted case of the appellant that the policy was taken by it paying the premium amounts and that the policy was retained by it. This particular she-buffalo with a corrected Tag No. 32735 was affected by a disease and on 7.10.1994 it was taken to the Government Veterinary Hospital at Samalkot and thereafter it died on 9.10.1994 at 7.00 A.M. The Veterinary doctor of that hospital gave death intimation report dated 9.10.1994 (marked as Ex. A-2). As the complainant informed the appellant the said fact, the appellant got a claim on the Insurance Company laid by the complainant (marked as Ex. B-6) stating therein that it was being sent through it and sent the same alongwith a copy of the Veterinary doctor certificate (Ex. B-8) alongwith its letter dated 12.10.1994 (marked as Ex. B-2). The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company addressed letter dated 18.10.1994 (marked as Ex. B-3) asking for the policy number or cover note number. Details of those were furnished by the appellant in its letter dated 24.10.1994 (marked as Ex. B-4). However the 2nd respondent repudiated the claim on the ground that the ear tag of the deceased animal was not sent to it and that in the conditions of the policy it was made very clear that no claim would be entertained without ear tag. When the appellant sought to recover the loan amount advanced by it for the purchase of she-buffalo, the complainant objected contending that as the animal was insured and the Claim was made by the appellant itself, the appellant ought to have seen to it that the Insurance Company paid the claim amount and that it ought to have been adjusted towards the loan. As the appellant is still insisting on the complainant for paying the entire loan amount, he approached the District Forum for redress.

2. In the counter filed by the appellant before the District Forum it was admitted that it had paid the premium to the 2nd respondent Insurance Company in respect of the she-buffalo in question. It further stated in its counter that the complainant informed it about the death of the she-buffalo by letter dated 10.10.1994 and that it referred the same to the 1st opposite party i.e. Insurance Company, by letter dated 12.10.1994 (Ex. B-2) and requested them to arrange for payment of the claim. It is further stated as follows:

“This respondent sent the xerox copy of the policy and cover note number and the Tag No. 32735 of the shf-buffalo to the 1st respondent on vide a letter dated 24.10.1994 and the 2nd respondent recommended for the payment of the claim.”

It further contended that the complainant himself was negligent in not producing the ear tag issued by the Insurance Company and hence he was alone responsible for non-settlement of the claim. The 1st opposite party in the O.P. i.e. Insurance Company, in its counter contended that the policy was taken only by the appellant for covering the risk of six she-buffaloes and that it issued Tag Nos