NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. AMAR NATH GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides in details. The learned Lawyer for the respondent submits that they have raised objections as to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground of limitation. He submits that final order was passed by the Forum on 20.3.1998 when the dispute between the parties was finally determined by the Forum with a direction to the opposite party No.1 to report compliance regarding payment by 4.5.1998. He submits that the period of limitation would run from 20.3.1998 not from any subsequent date inasmuch as nothing remained to be decided by the Forum after the impugned order dated 20.3.1998 was passed. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the order dated 20.3.1998 cannot be regarded as final and conclusive in view of the fact that the Forum recorded specifically that the opposite party was to report compliance by 4.5.1998 and for disposal of the case. He submits that in fact the Forum actually disposed of the matter on 4.5.1998 by the order of the same date. In this connection he has drawn our pointed attention to the last portion of the order dated 4.5.1998 wherein it has been specifically recorded by the Forum that the case was disposed of in accordance with earlier order dated 20.3.1998 without cost. In support of his contention to the effect that the appeal is barred by limitation, the learned Lawyer for the respondent has referred to certain decisions of the Privy Counsel as well as Supreme Court to contend that the order dated 20.3.1998 was final and conclusive and nothing remained to be determined by the Forum after the impugned order was passed. The legal position is not in dispute. The point which requires decision here is whether the case was finally disposed of on 20.3.1998 or on 4.5.1998. As noticed earlier, the Forum issued certain directions to the opposite party by the impugned order and directed to report compliance by 4.5.1998. The matter was put up on 4.5.1998 on a petition being filed by the opposite party raising certain contentions. The Forum thought it fit not to take into consideration the contentions raised by the opposite party. The matter was heard, the case was finally disposed of in accordance with earlier order dated 20.3.1998. We have seriously considered the submissions made at the bar and are of clear opinion that if the two orders are read together it would appear that the case was finally disposed of on 4.5.1998 and not on 20.3.1998 as is sought to be established by the learned Counsel for the respondent. Since the appeal has been filed within stipulated period of limitation from 4.5.1998 the objection raised by the respondent with regard to maintainability of the appeal on the point of limitation is over-ruled.

(2.) Now, coming to the merit of the appeal we find that the complainant approached the Forum claiming compensation for a sum of Rs.71,800/-. The opposite party made a grievance before the Forum that the claimant did not produce original vouchers showing expenses incurred in the matters of repairing the vehicle in question before it. It appears that in course of hearing the claimant produced certain documents by furnishing a list of such documents to the learned Counsel for the other side who had acknowledged the same. It further appears that the Forum was pleased to take into account the vouchers thus submitted in course of hearing of the matter and passed an award for a sum of Rs.52,088/-. The learned Lawyer for the appellant makes a grievance to the effect that the Insurance Company was not given any opportunity to controvert the documents produced by the claimant only at the time of hearing. He alleges that the matter was referred to the Surveyor for assessment damages of the vehicle in question but the claimant did not produce any document either to the Surveyor or before the Insurance Company in support of his claim for compensation. He submits that only on the date of hearing, the claimant produced some documents and as such the Insurance Company was not in a position to verify the claim of the petitioner. He submits and prays that an opportunity should be given to the Insurance Company to verify the claim of the petitioner to arrive at a decision regarding compensation to be awarded to the petitioner for the damage caused to the vehicle.

(3.) Learned Lawyer for the respondent submits that he has submitted all the bills/ vouchers etc. before the Company well before the date of hearing. Anyway having considered all the submissions of the parties we deem it proper to pass the following directions.