United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs DULI CHAND

BY a majority (2 members) order of the District Forum, Jhunjhunu dated 10.10.91 in Complaint Case No. 20/91 a direction was given to the opposite party-appellant to pay Rs. 8000/- to the complainant-respondent together with Rs. 300/- as costs within 15 days from the date of the order. The President of the District Forum (District Judge) Jhunjhunu did not agree with that order. Aggrieved the opposite party-appellant has lodged this appeal. In view of the conclusion to which we have arrived at after hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent in-person it is not necessary to state the facts in detail. The complaint was filed on 6.3.91 alleging that the complainant got one she buffalo insured with the opposite party-appellant vide policy No. 389793 for the period from 6.1.1989 to 5.1.1990. The premium of Rs. 320/- was paid by the complainant-respondent to the opposite party-appellant. The sum assured was estimated value of Rs. 8000/-. The she-buffallo died on 29.6.1989. The complainant-respondent lodged a claim before the opposite party-appellant (insurer). As the claim was not settled he filed a complaint dated 6.3.91 before the District Forum, Jhunjhunu praying that a direction may be issued to the opposite party-appellant to pay Rs. 8000/- and Rs. 300/- as costs and also interest. A sum of Rs. 2000/- was also claimed as compensation.

THE opposite party-appellant resisted the complaint controverting the allegations made in the complaint. It was denied that the complainant-respondent is entitled to any compensation. THE complainant examined himself as a witness. In addition to this statement of Shri Manadroop Singh and Shri Suresh Kumar were recorded on behalf of the complainant. In rebuttal Shri Shivesh Mathur, Branch Manager was examined as a witness. THE District Forum heard the arguments on 19.9.91. THE date fixed for orders was 30.9.91 and ultimately the majority order was pronounced on 10.10.91 granting the reliefs as stated above. Hence this appeal by the opposite party-appellant. On 19.5.92 a writing was submitted by the complainant-respondent. THE substance of the writing is that the majority order of the District Forum is correct and that justice may be done to him. Today, we heard the complainant-respondent, Shri Duli Chand in-person and Shri Atul Luhadia, Advocate for the opposite party-appellant. Mr. Atul Luhadia, learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the majority order which has been pronounced by the two members of the District Forum is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. He also submitted that it is not clear whether the majority order was passed/pronounced during regular sitting of the Forum. In order to examine the arguments of Mr. Luhadia it is necessary for us to clearly scrutinize the two order sheets dated 30.9.91 and 10.10.91 in the light of the two orders dated 30.9.91 and 10.10.91. The District Forum heard the arguments on 19.9.91 and posted the complaint for orders on 30.9.91. On 30.9.91 the proceedings were recorded. They are to the effect that the President has prepared the order but in the absence of the opinion of the members it was not pronounced and that the members want to give their opinion on 10.10.91 and, therefore, it cannot be pronounced. The complaint was posted for orders on 10.10.91. The order sheet dated 10.10.91 shows that separate order was written and pronounced. The orders of the President and the two members are separate. According to the order of the President the complainant can get relief in a Civil Court and so without affecting the rights of the complainant the complaint be dismissed. According to the majority (two members) the opposite party-appellant should pay a sum of Rs. 8000/- being insured amount on account of the death of the she-buffallo together with Rs. 300/- as costs within 15 days. Two lines were written and they were cut out. Thereafter it was written "Aadesh Sunaye Gaye".

Now let us consider the two separate orders. The first order is dated 30.9.91 which was pronounced on that day. By this order the complaint was dismissed. The President signed the order putting 30.9.91 as the date below his signatures. The two members separately wrote on the order "Main Sahmat Naheen Hoon" and put the signatures separately and the date below it. It is significant to note that the order shows that it was pronounced on 30.9.91 but two members did not agree with the order of the dismissal of the complaint and the President has put his signatures. The other order is dated 10.10.91 which is signed by the two members on that day and they put the date below the signatures. By the order dated 10.10.91 reliefs were granted to the complainant. In the background of the two order sheets dated 30.9.91 and 10.10.91 and the two orders dated 30.9.91 and 10.10.91 we proceed to examine the validity of the two orders.

SEC. 14(2) of the Act as amended reads as follows : - "(2) Every proceeding referred to in Sub-section (1) shall be conducted by the President of the District Forum and at least one member thereof sitting together; Provided that where the member, for any reason, is unable to conduct the proceedings till it is completed, the President and the other member shall conduct such proceeding de novo. (2A) Every order made by the District Forum under Sub-section (1) shall be signed by its President and the member or members who conducted the proceeding : Provided that where the proceeding is conducted by the President and one member and they differ on any point or points, they shall state the point or points on which they differ and refer the same to the other member for hearing on such point or points and such point or points shall be decided according to the opinion of that other member". A close reading of SEC. (2 A) shows that if any order is passed under SEC. 14(1) it should be signed by the President and the member/members who conducted the proceeding. The proviso does not contemplate difference of opinion between the President and two members though in the original Act in Sub-section (2) it was provided that if there is any difference of opinion, the order of the majority of the members constituting the Bench shall be the order of the District Forum. These words have been omitted in SECtion (2A). The prerequisite condition is that it should be signed by the President and the members passing the orders. In the case on hand one order is dated 30.9.91 which was pronounced and signed on 30.9.91, by the President dismissing the complaint and the two members (majority) wrote that they do not agree. There is another order dated 10.10.91 which was signed by two members. Not only that there is variation of the order dated 30.9.91 in the order sheet dated 30.9.91. The order dated 10.10.91 cannot be said to be a valid order in view of the fact that it was passed after 10 days of 30.9.91. The principles underlying O.XLI, R. 34 C.P.C. which is as follows could be invoked. It reads as under : - "SEC. 34. Dissent to be recorded - Where the appeal is heard by more judges than one, any Judge dissenting from the judgment of the Court shall state in writing the decision or order which he thinks should be passed on the appeal, and he may state his reasons for the same".

For the aforesaid reasons the majority order dated 10.10.91 stands vitiated and it is invalid in Law. We agree with the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant that this order is bad in law against which appeal has been filed. The President''s order should not have been pronounced. It is the majority order to with which we are concerned as it is subject matter of challenge in appeal before us. We are constrained to allow this appeal and set aside the majority order dated 10.10.91 passed in Complaint Case No. 20/91. We make it clear that the order dated 30.9.91 is also to be ignored. We remand the complaint to the District Forum, Jhunjhunu with a direction to take it on its file and decide it afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made hereinabove and the provisions of SEC.l4 (2) & (2A) of the Act and principles underlying Order XLI, Rule 34 C.P.C. after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned. The appeal is allowed and the case is remanded. Parties are left to bear their own costs of this appeal. Appeal allowed.