National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs SANJIDA KHATOON

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 31.8.2001 passed by Calcutta District Forum, Unit-I in Case No. 223/01. By this order the learned Forum allowed a sum of Rs. 1,08,290/- in favour of the O.P.-2 and directed the O.P-1 to pay the sum within 7 days from the date on which the order would be communicated to him. After passing this order, the Forum passed another order directing the complainant to seek remedy before the appropriate Civil Court if he so chose.

THE relevant facts of the case were that the complainant of this case executed an agreement under Higher Purchase Scheme with the O.P.-2 for purchase of a diesel Ambassador Taxi, NOVA model, at a total price Rs. 2,86,500/- from Austin Distributors, Calcutta. After execution of that agreement, the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and also Rs. 35,000/- in two instalments in favour of the financier and on 2.12.1997 he purchased the said Ambassader taxi accordingly. On the basis of the agreement O.P.-2 i.e., the financier paid a sum of Rs. 2,90,285/- to the Austin Distributors in the name of the complainant. THEreafter, on 18.7.1998 the said taxi was allegedly stolen from the custody of the complainant and a general diary was lodged with the Tiljola Police and a theft case was initiated under Section 379, I.P.C. and ultimately a final report was submitted in that case by the police. THE complainant, therefore, has filed the said complaint claiming Rs. 1,08,290/- as the amount settled by the Insurance Company. It is to be mentioned here that the financier also has filed a complaint before the said Forum being Complaint No. 619/2000 against the Insurance Company claiming the same amount on the plea that he was entitled to get the same. After hearing both sides the Forum passed an order directing that the matter involving the question of title should be decided by a Civil Court and he gave literty to the complainant to seek remedy in the appropriate Civil Court if he so chose.

Mr. Mukherjee, learned Counsel for the appellant before us argues that both the complainants discussed above having arisen out of the same exchange of action having been heard analogously in the same sitting by the Forum ought to have been dealt with in the same manner and the order ought to have governed both the cases, but curiously enough, for reasons best known to the Forum, two different orders diametrically opposite to each other have been passed by the Forum on the very same date after the hearing the cases analogously. We have already mentioned above the two different orders that have been passed by the Forum in this respect. In case of the CDF No. 619/2000 the Forum has practically referred the entire matter to a Civil Court for determination, whereas in case of the other complaint being No. 223/2001 he has granted an award of the entire amount claimed in favour of the O.P.-2 payable by the O.P.-1. According to Mr. Mukherjee such a paradoxical situation is inconceivable in the eye of law and he has preferred this appeal to set the anomalous situation right.

GIVING careful thought and consideration to the points argued by Mr. Mukherjee as well as the materials before us we are of the opinion that there is hardly any scope for us to defer with Mr. Mukherjee on the point under consideration. If the question of title or entitlement is involved, that is to say, if the question is to be determined whether the money claimed is due to the complainant of the Complaint No. 619/2000 or the complainant of the Complaint No. 223/2001 and if for the purpose of determination of such a question the Civil Court is found to be the appropriate authority, then it is not understood what prevented the learned Forum to pass the identical order in respect of both the cases. We, therefore, correct the erroneous finding of the Forum below by directing that the complaint involved in this appeal also should be referred to the Civil Court for being disposed of or decided in the same fashion. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order be set aside and the Complaint No. 223/2001 of the Calcutta District Forum, Unit No. 1 may also be referred to the Civil Court, if the complainant so chosen. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed, however, without any cost. Appeal allowed.