RAKESH GOSWAMI Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Mr.P.K.Debnath,learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. P. Goutam, learned Counsel for the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. None is present for the National Insurance Company Ltd. who is the main respondent and the State Bank of India the third respondent . The order dated 1.3.2008 of this Commission shows that on the prayer of the appellant, the United India Insurance Co.Ltd. and the State Bank of India were allowed to be added as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 which has brought Mr. P. Goutam here for the United India Insurance Company Ltd. The record does not say appearance of the State Bank of India Mr. A. Lodh, learned Counsel for the National Insurance Co. Ltd. is absent today without any prayer for adjournment. After hearing learned Counsel for the appellant and United India Insurance Company Ltd., we are of the view that this appeal can be finally dispose of on the basis of the materials available on record.

(2.) THIS appeal by Sri Rakesh Goswami is directed against the judgment dated 18.8.2007 passed by the learned District Forum,West Tripura, Agartala in CPA -38 of 2004 whereby an amount of Rs. 15,000 has been awarded as compensation, Rs. 5,000 for mental agony and Rs. 2,000 for cost. Dissatisfied with the total award of Rs. 22,000 the appellant is before us in the present appeal on the ground of inadequacy of the amount awarded.

(3.) THE admitted fact is that the appellant had taken loan from the State Bank of India, Gandhigram Branch, under the Prime Minister Rojgar Yojana(PMRY) Scheme for providing self employment to educated unemployed youth. The letter of the State Bank of India dated 16.6.1998 addressed to the appellant shows that the amount of loan was Rs. 22,078 as term loan and Rs. 39,672 as working capital. The rate of interest indicated in para -4 was 13.77% with quarterly rests . Para -6 of the said letter indicates that the repayment of the term loan components of Rs. 22,078 would be repaid by monthly equal instalments of Rs. 736 plus interest. The working capital loan of Rs. 39,672 was repayable on demand. There is no dispute that the appellant had received the entire amount and thereafter on 23.1.1999, about 7 months after the disbursement of the loan, certain articles from the grocery shop of the appellant, who started the business with the loan amount, were stolen The burglary was duly reported to the police station where a theft case was registered. After investigation a final report was submitted as true but wanting in evidence against any accused. Thepolice report dated 25.2.1999 indicates that the appellant had lodged the complaint in the Police Station on 24.1.1999 alleging that on the previous night some un -known miscreant had stolen from his grocery shop certain valuable articles. It appears from the police report that in the complaint lodged by the appellant following articles were stated to have been stolen namely: