State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Nic Ltd (Dm) And Another vs Sh. Suresh Kumar Sharma on 2 April, 2007
H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA. Appeal No. 124/2006. Date of Decision 02.04.2007. _____________________________________________________________________ 1. National Insurance Company Ltd. through its Divisional Manager Shimla, 2. National Insurance Company Ltd through its MD 3 Middle Town Street Calcutta. . Appellants. Versus Suresh Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Jia Lal Sharma R/o Vill. Kupri, PO Pujarali No.11Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla. . Respondent. ________________________________________________________________ Honble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel, President. Honble Mr. Narinder Singh Thakur, Member. Honble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member. Whether Approved for reporting? Yes. For the Appellants. Mr. Anil Tomar, Advocate. For the Respondent. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Advocate. .... O R D E R:
Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President, (Oral) MA No. 598/2006.
This is an application filed by the appellants for permitting them to lead additional evidence. Prayer made in this case is that, the report of the surveyor Sh. S. Duggal may be placed on record for being read in evidence on behalf of the appellants. Reason for its non production during the course of proceedings before the District Forum below given is that, though the entire case file had been handed over to the learned counsel for doing the needful, but for reason best known to him, ( the learned counsel), did not file the said report.
_______________________________________________________________ Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Order? Yes.
2. It is further admitted case of the appellants that they were in the know of fact that the surveyors report is a material document in order to sustain its defence in this case. It is further not the case of the appellants that they made an attempt to produce this document, during the course of complaint which was declined, and or after due diligence, they were not in the know of it. So far we are concerned, we feel that for the disposal of the appeal material already on the complaint file is enough.
3. Even after taking a very liberal view in the whole issue, we find that in case the surveyors report had not been filed as is now urged, as a prudent litigant what steps were taken by the appellants to enquire from their learned counsel, as to what documents have been filed and the officer who signed the reply to the complaint also did ensure that the surveyors report was filed or not. Mere handing over of the file was not enough in our opinion to it learned counsel by the appellants. As litigants it is also the duty of the appellants to ensure that they keep themselves posted of all the day to day developments by contacting their counsel.
4. Faced with this situation Mr. Tomar learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, either for inaction or omission of the counsel his clients should not be made to suffer, we would have appreciated this submission had affidavit of the learned counsel who was handling this brief before the District Forum below been attached with this application. There is none.
5. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we feel that no case is made out for permitting additional evidence to be produced by the appellants as prayed for in this application.
6. Catching the last straw, Mr. Tomar further submitted that with a view to do complete justice between the parties, it would be in the interest of justice to permit his clients to lead additional evidence. Justice has to be done even handedly to both the parties, as such this plea is also rejected.
7. Before parting, we may mention that, Mr. Tomar stated at the bar and in our view fairly and correctly that in case this additional evidence is not allowed for being read on behalf of his client, it will not be possible for him to challenge the correctness of the order impugned in this appeal.
8. No other point is urged.
In view of the aforesaid discussion there is no merit in this application as no cause is made out for permitting the appellants to lead additional evidence. Accordingly this application is dismissed.
Appeal No. 124/2006.
We have gone through the record of the case. There was no material placed on record before the District Forum below by the appellants on the basis whereof the compensation awarded can be challenged. Best evidence in this behalf is surveyors report, which was not placed on record muchless affidavit of the surveyor. And the prayer to allow the same being placed on record for being read in evidence has been rejected, vide order of the date passed in MA No. 1598/2006. That being the position we find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
All interim orders passed from time to time in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith.
Office will make available a copy of this order to the parties free of costs as per rules.
Shimla.
2nd April, 2007. (Justice Arun Kumar Goel) Retd.
President.
(Narinder Singh Thakur), Member.
(Saroj Sharma), Karan* Member.