No. 4/05.11.2008.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

Appellant is present through Mr. S. N. Dutta, the Ld. Advocate.  Respondent No. 1 is absent on calls in spite of having received the notice.  Respondent No. 2 is present through Ld. Advocate Mr. Gouranga Gupta Roy.  Appellant files BNA with a copy to the other side.

This appeal was filed against the judgement dated 25.04.2008 passed by Murshidabad District Consumer Forum in Consumer Case No. 133/2007 whereby the O.P. No. 1 – Insurer was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the Complainant within specified time.

The Ld. Advocate representing the present Appellant contends that in the impugned judgement quantification of loss has been made without any basis whatsoever and that too after recording a finding that no clear figure is forthcoming as regards the amount of loss from either side.  The contention appears to be justified that quantum of loss has been made without any basis.  The Complainant being Respondent No. 1 has not entered appearance though was served with a notice.  On behalf of the Bank Mr. Gupta Roy, the Ld. Advocate contended that there being reports by the impartial Government officials that there was some loss, the impugned order should not be interfered with by this Commission in the present appeal.

Considering the facts as we find that though there was a loss reported by some official but admittedly the Complainant has failed to prove the quantum of loss.  To that effect a finding has been recorded by the lower Forum in the impugned judgement.  In such background the conclusion of the Forum that the Insurance Co.  to make payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the Complainant to meet the ends of justice, does not find support from us.  Therefore, in our opinion the impugned judgement cannot stand and there being no proof of actual amount of loss, no direction for payment can be made.  The appeal is allowed.  The impugned judgement is set aside.  There is no order as to cost.