New India Assurance Co. vs ABHIJIT NANDY

THIS is a revision petition filed by the Asstt. General Manager. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 4, Mangoe Lane, Calcutta-4, against an order dated 72.94 passed in Execution Case No. 15/94 passed by the Calcutta District Forum. Respondent No. 1 is one Abhijit Nandy Government Industrial Housing Estate Employees'' Quarters, 87/B, Cossipore Road, Calcutta-700 002. Proforma Respondent No. 2 is the Senior Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 7, Ganesh Ch. Avenue, Calcutta-13, who has since been allowed to be transposed as Revision Petitioner No. 2. The facts giving rise to me impugned order dated 7.2.94 are as follows: -

THE Respondent No. 1 Abhijit Nandy had filed a case before the Calcutta District Forum, being C.D.P. Case No. 2068 of 1993 against the present Revision Petitioner and the Proforma respondent No. 2, both representing the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. claiming compensation of an amount of Rs. 3,50,200/- against the O.Ps.-Insurance Company. THE O.Ps. had appeared before the Forum and filed written objection against the complainant''s claim. THE case was fixed on 30.11.93 for hearing, but on that day none of the O.Ps. appeared. THE case was accordingly heard ex parte and the Calcutta District Forum after discussing the case in details passed a lengthy order on 14.12.93 allowing the complainant''s prayer. THE O.Ps. were directed to comply with the order within one month, but the order having not been complied with an execution case being CDF Ex-15/94 was filed. A copy of the Execution petition was served on the J-dr O.Ps. who on 27.1.94 filed an objection in which they divulged that on the date of hearing of me main case on 30.11.93 their Advocate was not able to attend Court due to high fever. THE said Advocate was instructed to take necessary steps for setting aside the final ex parte order. A petition was filed for this purpose and the order dated 14.12.93 was set aside by the District Forum on 21.12.93. Annexure "C-1" to their petition of objection filed on 27.1.94 is a xerox copy of the said order setting aside the ex-parte order. We have brought the original files of both the main case and the Execution case. In the main CDP Case No. 2068 of 1993 the order is available. In the last two lines of this order, the sentence "N / D is fixed 3.2, for hearing" is found in manuscript. Subsequently the figure "94" was inserted after 3.2. The order contains two signatures purporting to be of S.S. Gupta and S. Das. But in the certified xerox copy, the last sentence in manuscript is "Next date is fixed on 3.2.94 for hearing, and there is no signature of S.S. Gupta and S. Das. Only their names are mentioned below the words. "Member" and "President".

Evidently the certified copy of the order produced by the O.Ps. (referred to above as Annexure C-1) is not a xerox copy of the purported original order. The discrepencies noted are the expression "N/D" in the original has been written as "Next date" in the copy and the word "on" written before "3.2.94" is not there in the original. This shows that the certified copy produced is not be true copy of the original.

ON a further scrutiny of the C.D.F. Case No. 2068/93 we find that there is no order sheet showing that an application for setting aside the original order was ever submitted by the O.Ps. or any action thereon was taken by the service of notice of the complainant etc. So this self-appearing order has no root. Let us now revert to the point of revision arising out of those facts. The C.D.F. on receiving two contradicting orders in connection with the execution case went through the records and rejected the purported order dated 21.12.93 with the following observation: "After careful scrutiny of the documents the Forum concludes that there is serious manipulative efforts made by the O.Ps in jeopardizing the final order of the Forum dated 14.12.93 and recourse has been taken to certain apparently illegal methods as instead of taking the matter in the Appeal Court the O.Ps sought to have the final order illegally set aside here. Hence the alleged order stated to have been passed by the Forum on 21.12.93 is rejected outright and the submissions-oral and written made by the O.Ps at this stage has no room for consideration at all."

IN short, the Forum has held that the copy of the order filed by the O.Ps. showing that the previous order dated 14.12.93 has been set aside by the Forum is a false and spurious one. No such order having actually been passed by the Forum, there is no error, much less a jurisdictional error, to reject the same. But this raises a big administrative question. The emphasis used by the Forum in their observation quoted above is actually brandishing the order as a forged one. If so, how could the order with the signatures of two members of the Forum appear in the file ? The Forum has not stated that these are forged signatures. If they are forged, how could certified copies of the same be issued ? The certified copies were also not true copies of the original as has been found by us. Who issued these certified copies ? Certified copies of public documents may be issued only under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 by an officer authorised for this purpose. Under the Explanation to aforesaid Section 76 an officer who by the ordinary course of official duty is authorised to deliver such copies shall be deemed to have the custody of such documents within the meaning of the section. So the officer who granted certified copy of the alleged spurious order had the custody of the original document. An enquiry should be immediately held how such a document was forged while in his custody. Inasmuch as the Forum has come to a prima facie conclusion that a forged document has been produced before the Court to be used in evidence, the President of the Calcutta District Forum is directed to hold an enquiry under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and make a complaint to the S.D J .M. concerned for starting a criminal case against the person who is prima facie found guilty on enquiry. So far as the revision petition is concerned, we are satisfied that the order dated 7.2.94 passed in Execution Case No. 15/94 requires no revision. The said petition is accordingly rejected with costs of Rs. 400/- payable by the two revision petitioners to the respondent. Revision Petition dismissed with costs.