Mohan the Elephant: When Evidence and Insurance Brought Justice to Animal Cruelty

Sometimes, as legal practitioners, our work extends far beyond the technicalities of claims, compensation and allegations. It compels us to confront the deeper societal issues that lie at the heart of justice.

Today, we share the poignant story of Mohan, a majestic black male elephant.[1]

Mohan was originally owned by an individual and insured by a certified insurance company for personal use. However, what followed was a stark reminder of the harsh realities within our labour-intensive industries, particularly those involving animal cruelty.

Mohan was transported to the remote forests of Kangching Village, Tuli, Nagaland, where he was exploited for long hours of timber shifting, a clear case of commercial abuse. Throughout this ordeal, he was cared for by his mahout (caretaker), the only person who showed him kindness. Tragically, Mohan suffered an injury, leaving Mohan without anyone to look after him.

On one unfateful day, Mohan stopped eating. His health deteriorated rapidly, but no veterinarian was called. Left without proper care, he ultimately succumbed to his suffering. The caretakers then reached out to the insurance company, seeking recompense for Mohan’s insurance claim.

The contents of the survey report prepared by an independent surveyor were deeply disheartening. The report went beyond merely documenting the commercial exploitation of the mighty elephant; it also revealed that, following the animal’s death, its head was severed and exploited for its tusks. Furthermore, the claimants failed to report this incident to either the Police Authority or the Forest Officials.

While representing the Insurance Company, our team focused on several critical issues:

1.    Purpose of Insurance vs. Actual Use:

Although the elephant was certified for personal use, evidence, including statements from the Village Council and the survey report clearly indicated that the animal was being used for timber shifting.

2.    Failure to Provide Proper Care:

The complainants failed to take proper care of the animal, which was against the insurance Policy.

3.    Failure in Identification:

The elephant had been fitted with a microchip in the ear region. However, since the deceased elephant was found in a headless state, it was impossible to verify whether the microchip was present. Consequently, it could not be conclusively established that the dead elephant was the same as the one insured under the policy.

The State Commission, relying on the surveyor’s report and various precedents from the National Commission, held that the report made by the surveyor cannot be disbelieved unless there are cogent and convincing reasons to do so.

Ultimately, the court held that since the microchip in the ear region could not be located, owing to the missing head, it was impossible to confirm whether the deceased elephant was the same as the one insured. As a result, the Insurance Company could not be held liable for any deficiency in service.

This matter, adjudicated before the Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, goes beyond the specifics of insurance claims and financial settlements. It invites us to reflect deeply on the wider concerns of animal welfare and the ethical obligations of individuals and institutions responsible for animal care.

[1] Mohd. Rafiq vs. Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. CC/384/2011.

Disclaimer

The note is prepared for knowledge dissemination and does not constitute legal, financial or commercial advice. AK & Partners or its associates are not responsible for any action taken based on its contents.

For further queries or details, you may contact:

Mr Anuroop Omkar

Partner, AK & Partners

info@akandpartners.in