An order of a District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum awarding a ‘jumbo sum' to the owner of an elephant on the animal's death, has been almost nullified by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
The district forum had awarded Rs.10 lakh being the sum assured, Rs.one lakh as compensation and costs of Rs.5,000. Now, the appellate body has directed the insurance company to return the premium of Rs.45,506 alone with nine per cent interest and costs of Rs.2000.
Geetha of Tuticorin was the owner of the captive elephant ‘Suma' through a gift by S.Joy of Kerala. She had applied to the Chief Wildlife Warden, Chennai, for possession certificate. She insured the animal by paying a premium of Rs.45,506 for the period from March 31, 2008 to March 30, 2009. On April 1, 2008, the elephant, after participating in a temple function at Athoor, fell into a river bed due to a steep slope and suffered injury. It died the next day.
The complainant lodged a claim with the United India Insurance company, Tuticorin, which was repudiated as the possession certificate was not produced. She filed a complaint before the district forum which passed the award.
Challenging this, the insurance company preferred appeal. It argued that the possession of elephant was not valid and in that view the complainant had no insurable interest over the elephant. Suppressing the same, the animal had been insured. This kind of insurance should be held as void.
The Commission Bench comprising the president Justice M.Thanikachalam and member Vasugi Ramanan said in order to possess the elephant or to have an insurable interest over the animal, the person concerned should have possession certificate, failing which, the captive animal, should be treated as the property belonging to the government. The person could be punished. The complainant should have a possession certificate. The microchip which had been attached to the elephant previously for tracking will not help the complainant to claim ownership or make the insurance contract valid.
The appellant said the contract due to the inadvertence of the staff of the public sector company, acting contrary to the contract terms, would not become binding as per a decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
Allowing the appeal, the Bench said though the post-mortem certificate was available, it created much doubt considering the proximity of the date of insurance and the date of death and the non-production of the possession certificate either by the complainant or the alleged predecessor. In the absence of the Chief Wildlife Warden's permission, possession of the captive animal was prohibited.
It said the complainant was entitled to the premium amount alone and not the sum assured or any compensation since the repudiation could not be termed negligence or deficiency in service. The Bench modified the district forum's order.
