National Insurance Company Ltd. vs MOHINDER SINGH

WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the additional evidence produced by the respondent. Before dealing with the merits of this appeal, we would take up the cross-objections filed by the respondent seeking enhancement of the compensation. So far Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter to be referred to as the ''Act'' is concerned, there is no such provision for maintaining the cross-objections, nor any provision has been brought to our notice on behalf the respondent. So far applicabiity of Code of Civil Procedure is concerned, it is limited under Sections 13(4) to 13(7) of the Act.

TO be fair to the learned Counsel for the respondent, we may notice his submission. Per him, every Court, judicial/quasi judicial authority has inherent power for doing complete justice between the parties to entertain cross-objections. Thus, according to him, cross-objections are maintainable and those need to be disposed of on merits. With a view to advance his this submission, he placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank v. M/s. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 2592. This judgment, in our opinion, negatives the plea urged by learned Counsel for the respondent. In this case, it has been held that the powers of the Commission under the Act in relation to a letter filed before the Commission alleged to be forged one, such plea could not have been legally ignored and in this background, it was further held that authorities, be they constitutional, statutory or Administrative (and particularly those who have to decide a lis) possess the power to recall their judgments or orders if they are obtained by fruad, as fraud and justice never dwell together. The context in which this judgment has been given, cannot be overlooked. Because fraud vitiates everything. As such, it needs no authority. Again, faced with this situation, Mr. Thakur submitted that by withholding annexures supplied by Surveyor with his report, Insurance Company has committed fraud. Prima facie, this argument appears to be quite attractive but when examined in the context of the record of the complaint before the District Forum or even the so called additional evidence produced in this appeal, its hollowness is exposed. We may also mention in this behalf that filing of cross-objections as also right of appeal, review and revision are the creation of statute. In case Legislature intended to create such right in favour of a litigant like respondent in the present case, nothing prevented it to have done so. The omission is not unintentional. In our opinion, it is purposeful with a view to provide expeditious and inexpensive justice to the parties in summary proceedings under the Act without insisting on procedures prescribed under the ordinary law of the land. That being the position cross-objections are held to be not maintainable and are accordingly rejected.

Now coming to the merits of the case. Mr. Dharmani, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that chicks had died due to ''Fowl Cholera'', therefore, his client is not liable for payment of any amout, whatsoever and compensation awarded in the sum of Rs. 35,000 with interest and cost awarded by the impugned order needs to be set aside. Mr. Dharmani further stated that so far direction to pay Rs. 12,950 with cost in terms of the Surveyor''s report is concerned, his client does not challenge the same.

IN order to appreciate the submission of Mr. Dharmani, we will refer to the claim form and Veterinary Surgeon''s Certificate on its reverse. IN Col. No. 5, the doctor has opined that overall management of the farm was very good. He had given the line of treatment - ''Symptomatic and to control the disease''. Date of death was between 17.10.2002 to 19.10.2002. General conditions of the birds is reported to be good, but emaciated? IN the face of this report to say that the chicks were not being looked after and were not being maintained by the respondent, would not be justified. Moreover, it can safely be said that when the chicks were insured, the appellant-INsurance Company had fully satisfied itself about their fit state of health which could be insured. It was only then that insurance was undertaken by the appellant. Once this conclusion is arrived at, then the decision of this appeal need not detain us any further. A attempt was made by Mr. Dharmani without in any manner conceding when he submitted that amount awarded needs to be proportionately reduced as it has been allowed for 2500 chicks. This plea being contrary to record is being simply noted to be rejected. Reason being that the compensation allowed is only qua 1960 chicks and not 2500. No other point was urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal has no merit and it is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. All interim orders passed from time-to-time in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith. Office is directed to make copy of this order available to the parties free of cost as per Rules. Appeal dismissed.