- (1.) THE claim has been made by the complainant on the ground that his lorry which was insured with the opposite parties met with an accident and that he had to spend a sum of Rs. 97,746.60 p. towards its repairs and since the opposite parties have failed to make good the claim the complainant has lodged the complaint seeking recovery of Rs. 97,746.60 p. along with a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - towards mental agony and costs.
(2.) THE opposite parties, while denying the allegations made in the complaint, would only say that a Surveyor was appointed by them who, after inspection, estimated the damages at Rs. 34,335/ -, and the opposite parties duly intimated the complainant about the sanction of the said amount and requested the complainant to surrender the salvaged parts and return the loss voucher duly filled up and signed to enable them to make payment and that the complainant has failed to do so and thus there is no deficiency in service.
(3.) THE President of the District Forum, Erode rendered his verdict on 20.11.1998 dismissing the complaint holding that there was no deficiency in service. While so, the other two Members of the District Forum gave a separate verdict on 23.11.1998 accepting the complaint and directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 97,746.60 p. with interest at 18% along with a compensation of Rs. 2,000/ - towards mental agony. Hence the present appeal. We are of the opinion that it is not necessary to go into the facts of this case or discuss the case on merits since we have taken the view that it is a fit case for remand. The order passed by the President is dated 20.11.1998 wherein he has given reasons for coming to the conclusion that there was no deficiency in service, whereas the other two Members have passed an order on 23.11.1998 accepting the complaint. Thus there is a legal flaw. The other two Members ought to have given their verdict on the very same date on which the President gave his verdict. It is not open to them to wait and take their own time to pronounce their opinion in the matter. The order should have been passed on the same day either agreeing or diagreeing with the view of the President. There is no jurisdiction vested with them to pass a separate order on a date convenient to them and after the President has given his verdict. They ought to have pronounced their order simultaneously which they have failed to do so and, therefore, there is a legal lacuna and incorrigible defect in the order. Moreover, the order passed by them on 23.11.1998, three days after the verdict was rendered by the President, does not refer to the order passed by the President nor give any reason as to why they were unable to accept the order passed by the President. They have to refer to the order of the President, give their reasoning and the grounds on which they are coming to a different conclusion and the reason why they are not able to agree with the finding of the President. They have failed to do so. Therefore, on this ground as well the order passed by them suffers from irregularity and illegality. Thus in this case, we find that the Forum which consists of three Members of whom one is the President and the other are two Members, have come out with two different verdicts, one by the President dismissing the complaint and the other by the two other Members accepting the complaint. The verdict of the dissenting Members is neither rendered simultaneously nor gives any reasons for deferring from the view taken by the President. Therefore, in such circumstances, we have to hold the verdict given by the majority viz., the Members on 23.11.1998 as the verdict of the Forum. In the circumstances, though the order passed by the President of the District Forum must be deemed to have been overruled by that of the two other Members being the majority, to make the records straight and as we have taken the view to remand the matter, we make it clear that the order passed by the President dated 21.11.1998 and the order passed by the two other members dated 23.11.1998 will stand set aside. The matter is remitted back to the District Forum for fresh disposal in accordance with law and in the light of the observations hereinbefore made. The cost of the appeal shall abide by the final result of the complaint.Appeal disposed of.;