S. Coari, Member
1. Ld. Advocates for the both sides are present. The appeal is taken up for hearing in the presence of both sides. Heard arguments in full in presence of both sides.
2. The present appeal has been directed against the order No.5 dated 11.05.2011 passed by Ld. District Forum, Murshidabad at Behrampur in Case No.110/2010 wherein Ld. District Forum, Murshidabad allowed the complaint case ex parte without any order as to cost.
3. The case of the Complainant/Respondent before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, is that the Complainant as the owner of the vehicle bearing No. WB 57 7519 and the same was insured with the Insurance Company after observing all the formalities thereby covering a period from 24.07.2009 to 23.07.200. According to the Appellant, on 21.07.2099, the vehicle met with an accident and got damaged. The information of accident was duly informed to the Insurance Company on the same date and thereafter the vehicle was taken to motor garage for the purpose of effecting repairs and the same was also informed to the Insurance Company. According to the Complainant, one S. Yadav, who was the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time had valid driving license. The Opposite Party by written information dated 15.09.2009 has repudiated the insurance claim of the Complainant on the ground that the driver was not having a valid license. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the repudiation of claim at the instance of the Insurance Company which according to complaint tantamount to deficiency of service, the petition of complaint was filed for proper redressal before the Ld. District Forum in respect of services. By notice, the Opposite Party, Insurance Company did not appear and accordingly, the case was taken up ex parte hearing and Ld. District Forum being satisfied that there was deficiency of service at the instance of the Insurance Company/Opposite Party, disposed the case with cost ex parte, as mentioned above.
4. The only moot question that revolves round the present appeal is whether Ld. District Forum was justified in passing the impugned order as mentioned above.
Decisions with reasons.
5. At the time of hearing, it has been submitted on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant that the Complainant has been able to substantiate this case reasonably well and as Opposite Party, Insurance Company inspite of being informed in detail about the accident and subsequent effecting of repairing of the said vehicle, has arbitrarily and whimsically repudiated the claim on false and fictitious grounds. Ld. District Forum having rightly adjudged the case in favour of the Complainant/Respondent, there is no scope to entertain the present appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of the Complainant/Respondent and have also gone through the materials on record including the impugned judgment and found that in this case, the Complainant has come forward with the case to the effect that inspite of having valid insurance coverage in respect of the vehicle in question which was being driven by Driver having valid license, met with an accident, causing serious damage to the vehicle and the matter of accident was duly informed to the Insurance Company and subsequently the vehicle was put in garage for the purpose of effecting repairing which was also informed to the Insurance Company but the Insurance Company without any rhyme or reasons has repudiated the just and proper claim of the Complainant and hence the Petition of Complaint.
7. On scrutiny of the impugned judgment, we find that Ld. District Forum has relied upon service of notice upon the Opposite Party (Insurance Company) on the ground of presumption as it is reflected in by the Order dated 06/12/2010. In this regard we find substances so put forward by the Ld. Advocate by the Appellant, according to whom, in a case of present nature, presumption of services of notice ought not to have been considered by the Ld. District Forum. According to the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant in accepting the presumptive value of services, the interest of the Appellant Insurance Company has been highly prejudice and in the result the Appellant has been prevented and debarred in contesting the case properly
8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the present appeal and also taking into account the fact, the Ld. District Forum has relied upon the presumptive value of service of notice, which in our opinion ought not to have been taken, we are of considered of opinion that there is merit in the present appeal and the same should be remanded to the Ld. District Forum for trial afresh after giving opportunity to the parties to file/adduce, WV/evidence in support of their respective cases and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible, within three months from the receipt of the order as per Law.
9. In the result, the appeal succeeds.
10. Hence,
Ordered
That appeal stands allowed on contest without any order as to cost. The case is to be sent on remand to District Forum with a request for trial afresh after giving opportunity to the parties to file/adduce, WV/ evidence in support of their respective cases and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the receipt of the Order as per law.