State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
C.Selvakumar, Partner, Raja ... vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Branch ... on 9 December, 2015
IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MADURAI BENCH.
Present: Thiru.A.K.ANNAMALAI,M.A.,M.L.,M.Phil. PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
Thiru.M.MURUGESAN, B.Sc., B.Ed., MEMBER.
F.A.No.25/2012
(F.A.No.189/2010 on the file of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Chennai)
(Against the order in C.C.No.440/2004 dated 19.02.2010 on the file of DCDRF,
Madurai)
THE 09th DAY OF DECEMBER 2015.
C. Selvakumar,
Partner. Raja Traders,
14-A & 15, Nallamuthu Pillai New Road,
Keerathurai,
Madurai - 625 001. Appellant/Complainant
Vs
United India Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Branch Divisional Office - III,
91- Kamarajar Salai,
Madurai - 625 009. Respondent/Opposite Party
Counsel for Appellant/Complainant : Mr.M. Chokkalingam, Advocate.
Counsel for Respondent/Opposite Party: Mr. S. Suresh, Advocate.
This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 04.11.2015 and on
hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the material records this
Commission made the following:
ORDER
THIRU. A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER. (Open Court)
1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.
2
2. The complainant and his partners doing Black Gram and Orid Dhall business by purchasing the dhal from various firms and selling them to various retailers and others and stocks were insured with the opposite party for the policy taken for the period from 05.03.1998 to 04.03.1999 to the tune of Rs.13,65,000/- and for the period from 13.09.1998 to 12.11.1999 to the tune of Rs.1,40,00,000/-. On 11.12.1998, due to heavy rains dhalls were destroyed and on that basis claims were made with the opposite party to the tune of Rs.1,25,050/- and Rs.4,26,690/- and Rs.2,93,310/- and the claims were repudiated by the opposite parties on the ground that the claim is fabricated and not genuine on the basis of surveyor report and thereby the complainant filed a consumer complaint claiming Rs.10,95,050/- towards damages of material, Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of profit and another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for the delay of service of the opposite party in total for Rs.13,95,050/- and for costs of the proceedings.
3. On the basis of both sides' materials and after an enquiry, accepting the contentions of the opposite party, the District Forum dismissed the complaint with the direction to the complainant to approach the Civil Court for proper remedy.
4. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the complainant has come forward with this appeal contending that the District Forum erroneously dismissed the complaint without taking into consideration of the contentions of the complainant 3 stating that additional evidences needed and the issue to be decided through the Civil Court which is against the law.
5. We have heard both sides' arguments and perused the materials in this regard. The contentions of the appellant/complainant is that they have obtained policies on the basis of stocks available and the stocks were become perished due to heavy rains and downpour which is not disputed. However, the respondent/opposite party on the basis of surveyor's report contended that Madurai City did not experience heavy rains on the particular day, on 11.12.1998 and the purchase made on 11.12.1998 had been accounted and it should be treated only as raw-materials and there had been no transactions between the seller and the insured in the reasonable past and thus the subject transaction is isolated and colourable and further it is alleged that the claim was fraudulently made for the stock of Meenakshi Chokkanathar Mills by receiving damaged stocks to the complainants premises. To substantiate the same, the opposite party further contended that there was no heavy rain on 11.12.1998 by filing necessary paper news publication and there was doubt that there was haste by the complainant in purchasing 500 bags of dhall on the heavy rainy day and the information was given only on 14.12.1998 and the entries relating to the transport of stocks were varied and the methodology adopted in the payment of Rs.10,95,050/- towards the cost of 500 bags of dhall to the seller is also very suspicious and they have supported their evidence under Exhibits B1 to B4 for the above points and thereby the District Forum considering about the doubts of 4 the information with the case involved complicated questions of facts and required thorough investigation and verification of registers, accounts books and bill books of not only the complainant but also the seller Meenakshi Chockanather Mills which are not possible in the summary procedure before the District Forum and thereby dismissed the complaint with direction to approach the Civil Court and with this finding we do not find any error or infirmity and by considering facts and circumstances of the case and further even though the dispute could be considered in view of the judgment reported in (2006) 7 Supreme Court Cases 655 wherein the case of Oriental Insurance Co.,Ltd., - Vs - Munimahesh Patel, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
"Proceedings before the Commission are essentially summary in nature and issues which involve disputed factual questions should not be adjudicated by the Commission ".
The respondent/opposite party also relied on the judgments reported in III (2006) CPJ 102 (NC) and IV (2006) CPJ 213 (NC) which will be inapplicable and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2006) 7 Supreme Court Cases stated above, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Forum, Madurai passed in C.C.No.440/2004, dated 19.02.2010 with the liberty to the complainant to approach the Civil Court for proper remedy.
The time during the pendency of the appeal before this Commission shall be exempted for computation of period of limitation under section 14 of 5 Indian Limitation Act, 1963 in the light of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Trai Foods Ltd., - Vs - National Insurance Company Limited, reported in (2006) (2) CPC 665.
Sd/- xxxxxxxx Sd/- xxxxxxxx M. MURUGESAN, A.K. ANNAMALAI, MEMBER. PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER. INDEX: YES / NO TCM/Mdu Bench/Orders- 2015/Dec