MAHESH TAILOR vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

HEARD. Sh. Rishab Kumar had got his truck No : GRY 4124 insured with the respondent Insurance Company at its Godara branch office in Gujarat, for the period from 4.9.1992 to 24.10.1992. The said vehicle met with an accident at Deoli in Distt. Tonk (Raj.) on 20.10.1992. The complainant lodged his claim with the District Forum, Tonk but since his claim was not finalised for sufficiently long time he approached the Forum. Although the Forum held that it had territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint but dismissed it on the ground that the appellant could not produce satisfactory evidence regarding the valid permit of the vehicle in question on the date of accident. Hence this appeal by the appellant.

INSOFAR as the question of territorial jurisdiction is concerned that has been rightly decided. The respondent has its branch office througout the country including the city of Tonk. The accident had taken place at Deoli within the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum Tonk. Thus part of cause of action to the appellant had arisen under Section 11 of the C.P. Act, 1986, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum Tonk. The objection raised in that behalf is overruled. On merits we find that the appellant had claimed damages of Rs. 90,000/-. Since the complaint was dismissed by the Forum on the ground that at the time of accident the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid permit for plying the vehicle in Rajasthan, the claim filed by him could not be entertained. It is not disputed that this ground for dismissal of the complaint of the appellant had no nexus with the accident taken place and damage caused to the vehicle. The finding of the Forum on this point is, therefore, set aside.

We would have decided the appeal on its own merits, had we found that the parties led evidence in support of their respective claim with regard to the damage caused to the vehicle. The appellant had claimed damages on repairs basis. But such basis does not appear to have been proved by them by producing the relevant vouchers and cash memos, etc. On the other hand, the respondent did not file even the survey report of M/s. Mehta and Mehta who had admittedly surveyed the vehicle and assessed the loss caused to it in the accident. Under such circumstances we see no alternative but to remand the case to the District Forum for decision on the point of quantum of compensation, the appellant may be entitled to in respect of the damage caused to the vehicle.

IN the result, the impugned order is set aside and the case sent back to the District Forum, Tonk with the direction that it would permit both the parties to lead evidence in support of their claim with regard to the damage caused to the vehicle and quantum of compensation payable to the appellant in that respect. The Forum shall decide the complaint afresh according to law after hearing both the parties within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties before it on 8.1.2004. Appeal allowed.