Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 263 (UTT)

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LIMITED v. BALAK RAM

2003-11-14

K.D.SHAHI, LUXMI SINGH, SURENDRA KUMAR

body2003
ORDER Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi, Chairman—The claim of the complainant for recovery of Rs. 14,000/- (Rupess fourteen thousand only) was lodged for the death of the mule of the complainant, which was insured but the claim was repudiated. The complaint was allowed on 25.8.2000 by Smt. Prabhvati Gaud, Member and Sh. Mangal Singh Panwar, Member of the District Forum. The judgment has not been signed or pronounced by the President of the Forum. 2. The judgment was given before the enforcement of the new Act. Under the provisions of the new Act under Section 22(d) of the new Act in the absence of the President the senior-most Member can perform the functions of the President and can even sign and pronounce the judgment in that capacity. 3. But under the provisions of the old Act under Section 14(2)(a) every order made by the District Forum under Section 14(1) of the Act shall be signed by the President and at least one member of the Members. On the old cases, only the old Act shall apply and in the year 2000 the judgment could not have been pronounced by the two members only. In the Ruling reported in Budga Ltd. v. B.K. Jain, I (1991) CPJ 50 (NC), the National Commission has held that the provisions of Section 14(2) are mandatory and every order passed by the District Forum shall be signed by the President and two members. In the Ruling reported in III (2003) CPJ 185 (NC), National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Khodil Singh, it was held that when two members of the Commission have signed the order and not by the President that is no order in the eyes of law. The provisions were the same, which shall apply both to the Commission or the District Forum. 4. The judgment, therefore, is no judgment in the eyes of the law and, therefore, it was argued that the case be remanded for fresh writing of judgment. 5. We wanted to hear the case de novo ourselves but the learned Counsels for the parties pressed that they will loose one right of appeal and pressed for remand. ORDER The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 25.8.2000 is to be set aside. The case is remanded to the learned Forum for a fresh decision in accordance with law. Cost of the appeal shall be easy. Appeal allowed.