New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs VIDHYA SAGAR

THIS appeal by the opposite party-appellant is directed against the order dated 9.8.91 passed by the District Forum Shri Ganganagar in Complaint Case No. 108/91.

IN view of the conclusion to which we have arrived at, it is not necessary to give a detailed resume of facts. Suffice it to state the complainant respondent lodged a complaint against the opposite-party (insurer) on 2.1.91 for indemnifying the loss amounting to Rs. 90,000/- and interest at the rate of 10% p.m. for 11 months. The complainant had obtained cover note D.E.A. No. 016973 dated 27.10.89 for one year regarding safety of goods, cash, furniture etc. after payment of premium. It was alleged that there was theft on 27.12.89 by breaking open the locks and cash box and cash and ornaments were stolen. As the opposite parry failed to settle the claim, the complaint was filed for the reliefs mentioned above. The opposite party (insurer-appellant) resisted the complaint. One of the defence taken was that by letter dated 5.12.90, the claim of the complainant was repudiated after through investigation. It cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service rendered by the opposite party. The complainant can approach a Civil Court after repudiation of the claim. The District Forum heard the arguments about the maintainability of the complaint on 16.7.91. It appears that on 9.8.91 an order was pronounced and signed by the President and two members of the District Forum. The operative part of the order is as follows :

Foi{kh }kjk izLrqr n''"VkUrksa ds vk/kkj ij ekuuk gksxk fd orZeku ekeyk bl U;k;ky; ds vf/kdkj {ks= esa ugha vkrkA mls flfoy U;k;ky; gh lqu ldrh gSA bl fVIi.kh ds lkFk ifjokn vLohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA

THE order was pronounced and as stated above it is signed by the President and the two members. However below the sign an v. the members have appended a note that they do not agree with the order. No dissenting order giving reasons was written by the two members separately. THE order sheet dated 9.8.91 is as follows : Nksuks i{kksa ds vf/koDrkx.k mifLFkrA vkns''k i''Fkdk ls fy[kk;k tkdj lquk;k x;kA bl vkns''k ds lEcU/k esa Nksuksa lnL;ksa us viuh lgefr v/;{k ds vkns''k ds fo:) nh A vr% okLrs tokc fely rkjh[k 10-9-91 dks is''k gSA**

THE order sheet merely speaks that the two members do not agree with the order of the President. THEre is no mention of separate dissenting order by the two members. As two members of the District Forum did not agree with the President, the order dated 9.8.91 was against the opposite party insurer. It has filed the appeal as stated above. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted written arguments on 28.4.92. On behalf of the opposite party-appellant written arguments were submitted on 2.5.92. We have carefully considered the written arguments submitted by the parties. Letter of repudiation dated 5.12.90 is as under : "Re : THEft claim against Policy No. 46/00342, claim No : 89-90- 004 loss occurred on 27/28.12.89. Dear Sir, Above claim was referred to our Regional Office and they vide their No. JRO/VKG/NIG 190/0081 dated 23rd Nov. 90 have informed us that our policy covers loss to stock in night only when kept in burglar proof safe. Since the ornaments etc. were said to have been stolen by breaking sale counter which is not covered by our policy. THErefore they have repudiated our liability in the claim which please note."

One of the contentions raised on behalf of the opposite party appellant is that once the President and the two members have pronounced and signed the order that the complaint cannot be accepted, it was not open to the two members to have appended the note that they do not agree with the order of the President, for, it amounts to reviewing the order passed. No power of review has been conferred on the Redressal Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It appears from the proceedings of the District Forum that after 9.8.91, the District Forum itself posted the complaint for filing reply on 9.10.91 Subsequent order sheets show that on behalf of the opposite party-insurer documents etc. were submitted. As the record was requisitioned, further trial of the complaint was not conducted. It is, therefore, clear that as per majority (two members) the District Forum proceeded with the trial of the complaint and did not treat the pronounced order dated 9.8.91 as final by which the complaint was not accepted on the ground that the opposite party-insurer has repudiated the claim. There was no final order passed under Sec. 14 of the Acton 9.8.91 as is clear from the appended note of the two members and order sheet of that date. It cannot be said that two members by writing a dissenting note reviewed the order. Apart from that in view of the various decisions of the National Commission unilateral repudiation was also not justified. It is to be remembered that the trial of the complaint is proceeding and final order has not been passed and mere is no order on merits under Sec. 14 of the Act The appeal against the order dated 9.8.91 did not lay. However, this appeal is treated as revision. The District Forum Sri Ganganagar is directed to conclude the trial of the complaint on merits in accordance with law and thereafter to decide it after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. No illegality or material irregularity has been committed by the District Forum when it proceeded with the further trial of the complaint.

SUBJECT to the observation made above the appeal (which has been treated as revision) fails and it is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.