SANTOSH RAMCHANDRA INGLE vs TUKARAM MAHADU PATIL

COMPLAINT Case No. 205 of 1998 was preferred by Farookh Husain, complainant claiming Rs. 10,360 with 14% interest thereon from the appellant, who are the National Insurance Company Ltd. , its Regional Manager and its Divisional Manager also.

THE complainant alleged that an insurance was taken from the appellants for Rs. 50,000 covering the risk of chicks maintained in his poultry farm. According to him the insurance cover was for the period between 12. 5. 1997 and 11. 5. 1998. The illness is said to be virus having killed the chicks on 15. 2. 1998. It transpires from the record that upon notice in the complaint, the appellants put in appearance before the District Consumer Forum but on that very date, i. e. , 13. 11. 1998, the complaint was decided finally without affording any opportunity to the opposite party to contest the case. The plea taken there and in the appeal is that the chicks had died because of "ranikhet" disease which was not covered by the insurance policy. The District Consumer Forum proceeded on the basis that the appellant should have filed the written statement on the day they appeared and, therefore, has passed the decree without affording any further opportunity to the appellants.

Revision No. 86 of 1999 is directed against the order of the District Forum, Kushinagar dated 12. 5. 1999 whereby directions have been issued to proceed under Section 27 of Copra if the compliance is not reported soon or within the period allowed.

BY a suitable interim order, the parent directions in the complaint and the subsequent orders in the execution proceedings have been stayed. Complainant has, therefore, knowledge of the pendency of the appeal and the revision here. Notice was issued to the complainant thrice but he has not appeared. Notice, therefore, is held sufficient and the matter has been heard.

MR. Vineet Srivastava is right in his contention that the District Consumer Forum has proceeded to decide the matter on merits without affording any opportunity to the appellants to defend the case. In view of this matter, the order is challenged in the appeal and the revision cannot be sustained. The appeal and the revision, therefore, succeed and are allowed. The orders dated 13. 11. 1998 and 12. 5. 1999 are set aside. The matter is remanded to District Forum concerned which will decide the matter very expeditiously, preferably within five months of filing a certified copy of this order by either of the parties. Opportunity to lead evidence to both parties shall be afforded and no observation made above shall be interpretable for or against any of the parties in the litigation. Parties will bear their costs throughout. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal allowed.