NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. BIMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. against the order dated 20.1.2004 passed by the District Forum, Chamoli whereby the complaint of the complainant was allowed.

(2.) The complaint has been dismissed against the Bank, which has financed the purchase of the buffalo. In our view the case has not met fair trial. The complaint has been dismissed against the Bank but if we find that the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. was not at fault, the fault was that of the bank, we cannot decree it here because no appeal has been filed by the complainant. The facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased two buffaloes. One buffalo was killed by lion on 8.7.1998. It was met to post-mortem. The other buffalo also died after sometime by falling from hill. The complainant informed this fact to the Insurance Company and the bank. When no action was taken by them, the complainant made an application to Samaj Kalyan Adhikari and Nagar Panchayat Adhyaksha. Another application was given to the Insurance Company on 5.10.2000 but the amount was not paid. When the Bank sent a recovery certificate on 8.1.2003, then the complaint was filed. The repudiation order is dated 18.9.1998. The Insurance Company has given the information to the Branch Manager on the same day. No evidence whatsoever has been filed to show how information was given by the Insurance Company to the Bank. The copy of the written statement of the Bank has been filed. Bank has nowhere alleged that it has received or did not receive the repudiation order dated 18.9.1998. If it has received and it did not inform to the complainant, the complainant cannot be blamed rather there shall be deficiency of the Bank and the complaint shall be allowed against the Bank only because in that case the claim of the complainant may be barred by time. It is also not clear whether any application for condonation of delay was moved before the learned Forum or not? It is, therefore, necessary that both the parties should be asked upon to file their evidence before the learned Forum how the repudiation order was sent to the complainant, how it was sent to the Bank, whether the Bank received it or not, whether the Bank informed the repudiation order to the complainant or not and if the complainant had got knowledge of the repudiation order dated 18.9.1998, then it should be decided how the complaint is within time. If the bank did not perform its part of duties and has been deficient in the performance of its duties, the complaint should be allowed against the Bank and not against the Insurance Company and without any evidence on these points, no proper finding can be given. In the judgment, the learned Forum has observed that according to the Insurance Company the repudiation order was sent to the complainant by registered post. Such evidence has also to be produced before the learned Forum. The correspondence may not extend limitation unless there is acknowledgement of liability. In these circumstances it is proper that the case be remanded to the learned Forum to call for the parties to lead evidence on these disputes and then to decide it on merits. ORDER the appeal is hereby allowed. The order dated 20.1.2004 is hereby set aside. The case is remanded to the learned Forum for a fresh decision in accordance with the observations as made in the body of this judgment. Our findings shall not be treated as an expression on opinion on any of the points involved in the case. Cost of the appeal shall be easy.