NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs SUDESH KOHLI

-THIS appeal has arisen due to the discrepancy in the orders passed by the District Forum. Both the orders are dated 27. 7. 2007. Prior to this an order was passed by the District Forum on 10. 7. 2002 which on appeal was set aside by this Commission vide order dated 20. 2. 2006, with the direction to the District Forum to decide it afresh after specifying the exact amount of compensation. Operative part of the said order was as under: since there appears to be a dispute as to the amount deductible from the alleged claim in terms of the impugned order, we at the outset set aside the said impugned order being ex parte and in view of the controversy raised by the appellant remand the case back to the District Forum for deciding it afresh by awarding the claim for specific amount including the cost and compensation of Rs. 20,000 awarded by the District Forum. The matter shall be decided by the District Forum positively within two months.

THE impugned orders are dated 27. 7. 2007. Operative parts of these orders are as under: 1st ORDER 1. OP will pay Rs. 14,866 to the complainant as compensation. 2. Towards mental agony harassment and deficiency in service the OP will pay Rs. 6,000 to the complainant. 3. The OP will pay Rs. 3,000 as cost of litigation to the complainant.

AND 2nd ORDER (i) The OP will pay Rs. 1,17,000 to the complainant subject to depositing salvage, if not already deposited. (ii) Towards mental agony, harassment and deficiency in service the OP will pay Rs. 10,000 to the complainant. (iii) The OP will pay Rs. 3,000 as cost of litigation to the complainant. The above liability shall be joint and the several of the OPs.

As is apparent from the aforesaid two orders, the only effective order, which has been passed pursuant to the order passed by this Commission is whereby the appellant has been directed to pay Rs. 1,17,000 subject to deposit of salvage and Rs. 10,000 as compensation and Rs. 3,000 as cost of litigation, based on the facts involved for determination in the case.

Admittedly the respondent was having a comprehensive insurance policy against payment of premium of Rs. 14,866, which was valid from 30. 3. 2000 to 29. 3. 2001 but in the order whereby the appellant has been directed to pay Rs. 14,866, the District Forum inadvertently mentioned the amount of premium and not the insurance amount and therefore the order directing the appellant to pay Rs. 14,866 was under the wrong impression whereas it was the premium amount.

HAD it not been so the Surveyor appointed by the appellant would not have assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 18,552. 60 Paisa against the claim of Rs. 1,17,000 preferred by the respondent. This claim was raised as the bus caught fire, which was put off by the Fire Brigade. Perusal of the order dated 27. 7. 2007, whereby the appellant has been directed to pay Rs. 1,17,000 towards total loss subject to deposit of salvage shows that the order is silent as to the insurance amount as well as the case being the case of total loss. Both the orders are confusing as these are wanting in details and this is why the confusion is being created by the appellant that the order directing it to pay Rs. 14,866 is the proper order which was duly complied with by the appellant.

SINCE, we have observed that by no stretch of imagination the District Forum can come to the conclusion as to the loss being to the tune of Rs. 14,866 as it was the premium amount whereas the Surveyor appointed by the appellant itself assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 18,522. 60 paisa after scaling it down from the loss assessed at Rs. 1,17,000 by exempting certain items. We deem that the case needs to be remanded to the District Forum for deciding it afresh by discussing and dealing with all the facts and conclusions in clear and conspicuous terms as well as deal with the contentions raised by the appellant in support of the claim assessed by the Surveyor. The impugned order is not a happy order and has not been passed in the right perspective in spite of having been directed by this Commission vide order dated 20. 2. 2006 by way of remand to deal with and specify the exact amount of compensation, the respondent is entitled for. The order passed by the District Forum appears to have been passed in feverish haste without going into the rival claims and contentions of the parties. Unfortunately the matter received the treatment like shuttle cock and therefore we impress upon the District Forum to pass fresh order keeping in view the above observations, positively within three months from the date of receipt of this order even if it is to be taken on day-to-day basis. The appellant shall appear before District Forum on 7. 2. 2008 for the aforesaid purpose.

BANK Guarantee/fdr, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room. Appeal disposed of.