Order No. 6 date: 24-11-2014

Sri Debasis Bhattacharya

Ld. Advocates for the parties are present.

The appeal is taken up for hearing. 

Ld. Advocate for the Appellant submits that it is merely an agent of the Principal, i.e. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., who is the main and sole arbiter in settling the claim of the Complainant/Respondent, if admissible, at the first instance, and therefore they should have been impleded as a party in the complaint case for proper adjudication of the instant case.  There has been no instance of deficiency of service on the part of this Appellant, who happens to be the sole OP in the complaint case.  In such peculiar facts and circumstances, it would be fit and proper to remand back the case for a de novo hearing before the Ld. District Forum.

Ld. Advocate for the Respondent submits that the Respondent appeared in the case before the Ld. District Forum to defend its case, as it would be evident from order no. 14 dated 18-07-2012, by which the WV had been accepted, but ultimately did not proceed with the same.  That apart, the policy document was also handed over to the OP as it is reflected from order nos. 20 dated 05-10-2012 and no. 22 dated 19-10-2012. Nowhere in the WV there is any mention of the fact that the Oriental Insurance Company is its principal and they act as its agent.  So, there has been definite deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

Order sheets of the instant complaint case very much go to show that the OP filed WV, though belatedly, and the same was accepted by the Ld. District Forum and that till the last date of hearing, the OP was almost present on each and every date, and so it was wrong on the part of the Ld. District Forum to mention in the impugned order that in spite of service of process, the OP did not appear to continue the case.  There is a valid proposition that the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. is the insurer.  So, it is a necessity to implead the said insurance company in the proceedings of the case, which has also not been disputed in the instant matter, as vociferously argued by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, on whose absence, the hearing cannot and should not be completed.  In any case, the Complainant may be given an opportunity to add the insurer for a fair and proper adjudication of the matter concerned.  Also, this Appellant, who is the OP there, should be given another opportunity for its say in the instant matter.  Accordingly, it is a fit case where the matter should be remanded back to the Ld. District Forum, Jalpaiguri for a fresh hearing after giving due opportunity to all the parties and thereupon pass a reasoned order on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence.   

In the result, the appeal succeeds.

Hence,

ORDERED

that the appeal be and the same is allowed on contest against the Respondent, but without any order as to costs.  The impugned order is hereby set aside.  The case is remanded back to the Ld. District Forum for giving fresh opportunity to both sides for a fresh hearing as per abovementioned observation.