Sunil Kumar Garg, President—This appeal has been filed by the complainant-appellants against the order dated 5.2.2003 passed by the District Forum, Kota in complaint No. 154/01, by which the complaint of the complainant-appellants was

dismissed.

2. It arises in the following circumstances:

That the complainant-appellants had filed a complaint against the respondents before the District Forum, Kota on 28.4.2001 inter alia stating that after taking loan for a sum of Rs. 21,644 from respondent No.1 bank they had purchased 31 sheep in the year 1997. It was further stated in the complaint that the sheep were got insured by the respondent No.1 bank with the respondent No.2 Insurance Company. It was further stated in the complaint that 11 sheep of which tag numbers are mentioned in para No.5 of the complaint had died on 4.8.2000 and further 12 sheep had died on 18.1.2001 and other sheep had died on 20.1.2001 and 22.1.2001. It was further stated in the complaint that thereafter the claim was preferred by the complainant-appellants through respondent No.1 bank but respondent No.1 bank had intimated to the complainant appellants through letter dated 9.1.2001 that the claim had been repudiated by respondent No.2 Insurance Company and thereafter the present complaint was filed.

3. A reply was filed by respondent No.2 Insurance Company on 26.12.2001 and the case of respondent No.2 Insurance Company was that so far as the 11 sheep bearing tag Nos. 5270, 5285, 5258, 5209, 5249, 5208, 5281, 5232, 5240, 5295 and 5213 were concerned, they were insured with the respondent No.2 Insurance Company for a sum of Rs.8,632. But the claim was found false one as the sheep bearing above tag numbers had not died and thus the claim was rightly repudiated and for rest of the sheep it was stated that they were never got insured by the complainant appellants or by respondent No.1 bank with the respondent No.2 Insurance Company.

4. A reply was also filed by respondent No.1 bank on 15.2.2002 inter alia stating that the policy which was issued by respondent No.2 Insurance Company was for the period 16.11.1999 to 15.11.2000 and the claim preferred by the complainant appellants was presented by the bank to the respondent No.2 Insurance Company and if the same was repudiated by respondent No.2 Insurance Company, the bank could not be held liable.

5. The District Forum after hearing both the parties through the impugned order dated 2.5.2003 had dismissed the complaint as stated above inter alia holding that so far as the case of the complainant appellants that 11 sheeps was concerned, that was not established because of tag numbers and for rest it was held that they were never got insured with respondent No.2 Insurance Company.

6. Aggrieved from that order, this appeal has been filed by the complainant-appellants.

Note: In this appeal, the case of the complainant-appellants is restricted to only 11 sheep for which respondent No.2 Insurance Company had admitted that 11 sheep were got insured with the respondent No.2 Insurance Company by respondent No.1 bank for the relevant period as stated above.

7. The case of respondent No.2 Insurance Company is that as per investigation report dated 20.10.2000 prepared by the Investigator, the 11 sheep had never died as the proof of re-tagging was not found established and, therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated, but on the other hand the case of the complainant appellants was that after re-tagging new numbers were allotted and in the post-mortem report similar numbers were found, therefore, the 11 sheep were those sheep which were died on 4.8.2000 and repudiation of the claim in respect of the 11 sheep was not justified and it had amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the respondent No.2 Insurance Company and thus findings recorded by the District Forum by which complaint was dismissed be quashed and appeal be allowed.

8. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents have supported the impugned