NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MAHINDER PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is aggrieved from the order dated 9.8.2004 in Complaint No.227 of 2003 passed by the District Forum, Mandi. Vehicle in question, being insured vide Annexure B with appellant is admitted. It having met with accident on 20.6.2001 during the currency of the policy is also not disputed. On receipt of information regarding accident, Surveyor was appointed by the appellant to inspect the bus. Then only it was removed from the spot with the help of a recovery van. It was taken for repairs to the workshop of M/s. Doaba Coach Builder, G. T. Road, Jalandhar and an amount of Rs.55,321 vide bill Nos.19 and 20 dated 19.9.2001 was spent on its repairs. Denting painting work was got done from Satnam Denting Works, near Lamba Pind Chowk, By Pass Road, Jalandhar. Claim was submitted by respondent to the appellant. Finally, when claim for compensation was not settled, respondent got a legal notice issued on 21.2.2002. Ultimately, the claim was turned down on the plea that bills submitted by the respondent were not genuine. In this background, complaint was filed for deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. Forum below allowed the complaint in the following terms: "in view of the foregoing reason, this complaint succeeds and the same is allowed. Consequently, the opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant Rs.55,300 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of his claim, i. e. , 28.3.2002 till the entire amount is realized and also to pay Rs.3,000 as costs of the complaint. " Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the bills were found to be forged during the course of investigation got done by the appellant. As such, impugned award on this ground alone was liable to be set aside and consequently complaint dismissed. Another ground urged in support of this appeal was that on the date of issuance of cheque respondent had no money in his account. As such, on this ground as well as the impugned order passed by the Forum below was liable to be set aside.

(2.) All these pleas have been controverted by Mr. Dhaulta on behalf of the respondent. Per him, impugned order calls for no interference, as in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is just, reasonable and fair. On none of the grounds urged by the learned Counsel, any relief can be given to the appellant.

(3.) We are taking up the last submission first. At the time of hearing, it was not disputed on behalf of the appellant that cheque when presented for encashment had been duly honoured by the banker of the respondent. In the business world, during the course of commercial transactions like one involved in the present appeal, issuance of cheque is a well known as well as an acknowledged mode of payment. The only consequence that follows on account of its dishonour is that the liability intended to be discharged by such a cheque continues to exist. However, in the event of cheque being encashed, it dates back to the date of its issuance. In these circumstances, submission of learned Counsel for the appellant that respondent had no money on the date of issuance of the cheque in his bank account is without any substance and it merits rejection. Another reason to take this view is that in the event of cheque having been presented on the date of its issuance, and it was dishonoured, argument urged by the learned Counsel was bound to succeed. That is not the situation in the present case.