JODHPUR CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD vs United India Insurance Co Ltd

-THIS appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant Jodhpur Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd. against the order dated 4. 8. 2000 passed by the District Forum, Jodhpur in Complaint Case No. 385/98 by which the complaint of the appellant was dismissed.

IT may be stated here that the complainant appellant had filed a complaint against the respondent Insurance Company before the District Forum, Jodhpur on 28. 7. 1998 inter alia stating that the complainant appellant had taken a marine insurance policy on 18. 8. 1990 for a sum of Rs. 2 lacs and during the relevant period a loss of goods to the tune of Rs. 80,132. 68 were caused to the complainant appellant and for that a claim was lodged with the office of the respondent but the claim was not settled. Thereafter the complaint was filed. A reply was filed by the respondent on 13. 1. 2000 admitting the fact that the policy was taken by the complainant appellant but the case of the respondent Insurance Company was that the claim was repudiated through letter dated 26. 8. 1992 and hence no case and complaint be dismissed on ground of limitation also.

It may be stated here that before the District Forum when the impugned order was passed, Counsel for the complainant appellant was not present and impugned order was passed in absence of the complainant appellant or its Counsel.

THE District Forum had dismissed the complaint on ground of limitation as well as on merits also. Aggrieved from that order of the District Forum, this appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant.

SO far as the question of limitation is concerned, it may be stated here that no doubt, the claim was first repudiated through letter dated 26. 8. 1992 but there is no proof on record that the letter was served on the complainant appellant. Apart from that there is another letter dated 24. 12. 1997 by which the claim was again repudiated giving the reference of earlier letter dated 26. 8. 1992. When this being the position, if the period of limitation is taken from the letter dated 24. 12. 1997 the complaint would be within limitation. Therefore, it is held that the complaint which was filed by the complainant appellant was within limitation and findings on that ground could not be sustained. So far as the merits of the case is concerned, it may be stated here that since the Counsel for the appellant was not present on the date when the order was passed and since he had not put up his case, therefore, in such a situation opportunity of hearing must be given to the complainant appellant so that justice could be done.

WHEN this being the position, the impugned order could not be sustained and appeal deserves to be allowed and the matter is to be remanded back to the District Forum.

FOR reasons as stated above, this appeal is allowed, impugned order dated 4. 8. 2000 passed by the District Forum, Jodhpur is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Forum, Jodhpur, be decided afresh on merits in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum, Jodhpur on 3. 1. 2008. Appeal allowed.