13/01/2015 - The reasons for delay in disposal of this appeal can be seen from the order sheet.

          Heard Mr. Bibhash Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Mitul Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2.       On the prayer for condoning the delay of about one year in filing this appeal, Mr. Sinha submitted that as the appellant did not receive any notice in the complaint case, it came to know about the impugned judgement only when it received the notice in the execution case and therefore the delay may be condoned.

3.       On the other hand Mr. Mitual Kumar submitted that notice was validly served on the appellant but it deliberately did not appear before learned Lower Forum and allowed the order to be passed ex-parte and therefore the delay may not be condoned.

4.       It is true that the learned Lower Forum held that notice was validly served on the appellant, in the interest of justice we are inclined to condone the delay. Accordingly the delay is condoned.

5.       Heard the parties on merit.

6.       Mr. Sinha submitted that the claim of the complainant/Respondent was rightly repudiated on the ground that     “Permit not valid on date of loss”. He submitted that the permit was for “South Chhotanagpur Region only” but vehicles in question were burnt by the extremists in the Kolhan Division. He further submitted that the learned Lower Forum wrongly held that on the “date” of the alleged occurrence, permit was valid. He submitted that “on the date of loss” also meant that on the date of loss there was no valid permit for the area in question.

7.       On the other hand Mr. Mitul Kumar submitted that the Kolhan Division also falls within South Chhotanagpur Region. He further submitted that the repudiation was on the ground that on the date of loss permit was not valid and therefore the learned Lower Forum has rightly held that on the date of loss, permit was valid. He lastly submitted that if the permit in question was not valid for the area where the loss occurred, the appellant could obtain and produce a certificate from the concerned authority issuing the permit, or could adduce evidence in support of such claim.

8.       We find force in the submission of Mr. Mitul Kumar that the appellant could not prove that the area where the alleged occurrence took place does not fall within the South Chhotanagpur Region and the authority issuing the permit was not competent to issue permit for the area in question. Secondly, the repudiation was made on the ground that “permit not valid on the date of loss” whereas it is not in dispute that permit was valid on the date of loss.

9.       In the circumstances we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed

           If the appellant has not got the draft deposited in the executing court re-validated, it will get the draft re-validated and will deposit the differential amount as per the impugned judgement.     

 Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.

           Ranchi,

           Dated:-13-01-2015