ORDER (Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Retd.) President) (Oral) - Original records as requisitioned from the respondent has been produced by Mr. Sharma. 2.It is admitted case of the parties that during the course of trial of complaint No. 257/2005, stand of the respondent/Insurance Company was that claim made in this case has also been paid in addition to another claim of the subsequent Insurance year. Whereas fact of the matter is that the claim in respect of subsequent accident was paid, but not in respect of the accident which is subject matter of this complaint. This has resulted in filing of the appeal by the respondent. 3.On our specific inquiry, Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for respondent-Insurance Company stated that under the terms of policy at the time of accident vehicle was admittedly insured with his client. It covered limited liability risk in respect of one driver and two other employees for which premium had been charged by the respondent. further according to Mr. Sharma his clients has specifically asked the appellant to provide the information regarding who was the person sitting in the vehicle and in what capacity. Though in response to this letter, the appellant gave the particulars of his cleaner i.e, one Mr. Suresh Kumar, but not of the other person. Reason for not giving the particulars of the other person was that he had not sustained any injury. As such according to Mr. Verma there was no need to give the particulars of the second person who was sitting in the vehicle at the time of accident. This resulted in closure of claim file of the appellant by respondent-insurers. Having felt with such closure, the appellant filed complaint before the District Forum below, which has been dismissed. Hence this appeal. 4.A perusal of the file produced by the respondent which we have examined with the assistance of the officer of the insurer present as well as of Mr. Sharma, what emerges is that, the claim file was closed because of the failure on the part of the appellant to give the particulars as well as capacity in which the other person was sitting. Here stand of Mr. Sharma was that if in law his client is liable to pay any amount they would not be remiss. But in order to examine the case needful has to be first done by the appellant by fulfilling the information. Here stand of Mr. Sharma was that if in law his client is liable to pay any amount they would not be remiss. But in order to examine the case needful has to be first done by the appellant by fulfilling the information. 5.In view of the aforesaid discussion we feel that we need not go into the merits of the case while disposing of this appeal with directions to the parties which are as under :- “(a) That the appeal is allowed and as a result of it order of the District Forum in Complaint No. 257/2005, dated 1.5.2007 is set aside; (b) That the appellant shall provide in writing the name and other particulars including capacity in which the other person was sitting at the time of accident by or before 29.2.2008, at Kaithu branch of the respondent; (c) Thereafter by or before 31.5.2008 the respondent-Insurance Company shall examine the case and take a final decision either way. In case the decision is against the appellant, it will only be by a speaking and reasoned order, giving fresh cause of action to the appellant for approaching such Court/Fora as is permissible to him under law. Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Record produced by Mr. Sharma has been returned to him. Office is directed to supply a copy of this order free of costs to the parties as per rules. Appeal allowed. M.R.B. ———————