HARMOHINDER SINGH Vs. ANIL SEHGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON a complaint of M/s. J.B. Tyres, the District Forum II ordered on 23.10.1998 that United India Insurance Company is liable to pay Rs. 72,420/ - together with interest @ 15% p.a. w.e.f. 1.11.1989 and costsRs.2,000/ -. Aggrieved against it, the present appeal has been attempted.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts are that M/s. J.B. Tyres own a shop at Kiratpur Sahib. They deal in tyres, tubes, etc. There was a burglary on the intervening night of 21 stand 22nd June, 1989 at their premises. As many as 18 sets of tyres, tubes, etc. of different sizes were stolen. The local police was informed where DDR No. 14 dated 22.6.1989 was recorded and the Insurance Company -now appellant -was also informed at 10.00 a.m. on 22.6.1989. According to the report of M/s. S.B. Surveyors and Consultants dated 23.6.1989, the loss was assessed at Rs. 72,420/ -. On behalf of the appellant, it has been contended that M/s. J.B. Tyres originally instituted a civil suit in the Court of Additional Sr. Sub Judge, Anandpur Sahib and it was withdrawn on 10.11.1993 with permission to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Instead of a civil suit, M/s. J.B. Tyres instituted the complaint and that too at Chandigarh. The plea raised on behalf of the appellant is that institution of a complaint instead of a suit was not justified. We are of the view that it was a kind of alternative remedy and the mere fact that the complaint was not instituted at Ropar would not go against the complainant because Regional Office of the Insurance Company is situated at Chandigarh. Thus the Forum at this place had the jurisdiction. Similarly, the delay in institution was condoned long ago on 19.4.1994. The Insurance Company did not challenge the proceedings of 19.4.1994 though the complaint itself remained pending in the Forum for a little more than 4 years. It shall not be fair to disturb the proceedings of 19.4.1994 in appeal.

(3.) THIS repudiation after about 10 months of the occurrence and that too without assigning any reason cannot be said to be helpful to the appellant. On the contrary the various bills and statements regarding receipt and sale of tyres etc. have been brought on record to substantiate the claim. The conclusion is that the appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed with costs Rs. 500/ -. Announced. Appeal dismissed with costs.