National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Sri Sarbati Steel Tubes Ltd. vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 24 June, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 404 OF 2011 (Against the Order dated 29/08/2011 in Complaint No. 169/2001 of the State Commission Tamil Nadu) 1. M/S. SRI SARBATI STEEL TUBES LTD. No. 163/1, Broadway 2nd Floor, CHENNAI-600108 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Divisional Office VI Bali-Towers 4th Floor, No. 1 Abdul Razack Street, Saidapet, CHENNAI-60015 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. PREM NARAIN, MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri K. Ramasamy, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Kishore Rawat, Advocate Dated : 24 Jun 2016 ORDER JUSTICE V.K. JAIN (ORAL) The appellant/complainant, which is engaged in manufacture of steel tubes, took a fire insurance policy from the respondent in respect of its factory premises as well as the plants and machinery installed therein, for a total sum assured of Rs.7,43,00,000/-, for the period from 1.5.2000 to 30.4.2001. The said policy also covered the loss/damage, if any, due to cyclone. On 29.11.2000, there was a heavy rainfall coupled with cyclone and a portion of the factory of the complainant is alleged to have been destroyed due to the aforesaid rain and cyclone. The appellant/complainant submitted a claim of Rs.8,57,572/- but later reduced it to Rs.8,04,258/-. As against the claim, the surveyor appointed by the insurer assessed the gross loss at Rs.3,34,371/- in respect of one claim and 84,963/-in respect of the second claim. After making deduction for depreciation and salvage, etc. as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the net loss was assessed at Rs.2,73,941/-. The aforesaid amount was duly paid to the complainant after obtaining the requisite discharge voucher and the case of the insurer is that the said amount was accepted by the complainant in full and final settlement of its claim. The complainant, however, was not satisfied with the amount which it had received from the respondent and approached the concerned State Commission by way of a consumer complaint.
2. The complaint was resisted by the insurer which interalia stated that the complainant had been paid as per the assessment made by the surveyor and it had accepted the said payment in full and final settlement of its claim.
3. The State Commission vide its order dated 29.8.2011 dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved, the complainant is before this Commission by way of this appeal.
4. It is an admitted position that a letter dated 25.5.2001 signed by the Sr. Manager of the complainant company was sent to the insurer on receipt of the cheque of Rs.2,73,941/-. The appellant/complainant filed a purported true copy of the said letter dated 25.5.2001 before the State Commission. The insurer also filed a photocopy of the aforesaid letter dated 25.5.2001. It transpired on a comparison of the copy filed by the complainant with the copy filed by the respondent that the sentence "we have accepted your cheque in the above claim under protest" appeared in the copy filed by the complainant, but did not appear in the copy filed by the insurer. The State Commission, therefore, concluded that the copy of the above-referred letter dated 25.5.2001 filed by the complainant was an interpolated document, the above-referred sentence having been inserted therein at a later date. Had this sentence been there in the original letter sent to the insurer, it would also have appeared in the photocopy of the said letter filed by the insurer before the State Commission. Despite that, in order to doubly satisfy ourselves in this regard, we asked the learned counsel for the respondent to file the original letter dated 25.5.2001 received by the insurer from the complainant. The original letter was accordingly filed and taken on record. On a perusal of the original letter, it is found that the aforesaid sentence "we have accepted your cheque in the above claim under protest" does not appear in the document. It can, therefore, be safely concluded without any reasonable doubt, that an interpolated copy of the aforesaid letter dated 25.5.2001 was filed by the appellant/complainant before the State Commission after adding the above-referred sentence. This is obviously was done with a view to make out a case that the amount of Rs.2,73,941/- was accepted under protest. The appellant/complainant, therefore, did not approach the concerned State Commission with clean hands it having tried to mislead the State Commission by filing an interpolated document in support of its complaint.
5. It is settled proposition of law that a person approaching the Court for redressal of his grievance must place all the relevant facts before the Court clearly, candidly and frankly without any reservation even if those facts are against him. If the person approaching the Court does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly or states them in a distorted manner or otherwise tries to mislead the court, the Court has inherent power to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. The Court / Tribunal certainly has to take into consideration the conduct of the party which invokes its jurisdiction and if it finds that the litigant has tried to mislead or hoodwink, it must necessarily prevent him from abusing its process by refusing to hear him on merits of the case. Such a person, by his very conduct, disentitles himself from getting any relief from the Court even if it is otherwise made out on merits.
In Dalip Singh V. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (2010) 2 SCC 114, it was found that the appellant while approaching the High Court had made a misleading statement in para 3 of the writ petition by giving an impression that the tenure holder did not know of the proceedings initiated by the prescribed authority and by doing to, he succeeded in persuading the High Court to pass an interim order. Finding that it was an effort to mislead the authorities, which had been transmitted to the Court, the Supreme Court was of the view that the petitioners belong to the category of persons, who had succeeded in polluting the course of justice and, therefore, there was no justification for interfering with the order, which had been passed against them.
In P. Seshadri Vs. S. Mangati Gopal Reddy & Ors. 2011 5 SCC 484, the Supreme Court reiterated the otherwise settled proposition of law that a person approaching the Court needs to do so come with clean hands".
6. In Oswal Fats & Oil Vs. Additional Commissioner (2010) 4 SCC 728, it was found that the petitioner had withheld a lease agreement from the Additional Commissioner. Deprecating such a practice the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter-alia observed as under:
"20. It is settled law that a person who approaches the court for grant of relief, equitable or otherwise, is under a solemn obligation to candidly disclose all the material/important facts which have bearing on the adjudication of the issues raised in the case. In other words, he owes a duty to the court to bring out all the facts and refrain from concealing/suppressing any material fact within his knowledge or which he could have known by exercising diligence expected of a person of ordinary prudence. If he is found guilty of concealment of material facts or making an attempt to pollute the pure stream of justice, the court not only has the right but a duty to deny relief to such person". (emphasis supplied).
7. In Kishore Samrite Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (2013) 2 SCC 398, the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter-alia observed as under:-
"33. ..... While approaching the court, a litigant must state correct facts and come with clean hands. Where such statement of facts is based on some information, the source of such information must also be disclosed. Totally misconceived petition amounts to abuse of the process of the court and such a litigant is not required to be dealt with lightly, as a petition containing misleading and inaccurate statement, if filed, to achieve an ulterior purpose amounts to abuse of the process of the court. A litigant is bound to make "full and true disclosure of facts"."
35. No litigant can play 'hide and seek' with the courts or adopt 'pick and choose'. True facts ought to be disclosed as the Court knows law, but not facts. One, who does not come with candid facts and clean breast cannot hold a writ of the court with soiled hands. Suppression or concealment of material facts is impermissible to a litigant or even as a technique of advocacy. In such cases, the Court is duty bound to discharge rule nisi and such applicant is required to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of the court. (K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. (2008) 12 SCC 481).
8. In Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav & Ors. Vs. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh(2013) 11 SCC 531, the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter-alia has observed as under:
"46. It is not for a litigant to decide what fact is material for adjudicating a case and what is not material. It is the obligation of a litigant to disclose all the facts of a case and leave the decision making to the Court".
48. More recently, in Ramjas Foundation Vs. Union of India (2010) 14 SCC 38 the case law on the subject was discussed. It was held that if a litigant does not come to the Court with clean hands, he is not entitled to be heard and indeed, such a person is not entitled to any relief from any judicial forum. It was said:
"The principle that a person who does not come to the court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance and, in any case, such person is not entitled to any relief is applicable not only to the petitions filed under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution but also to the cases instituted in others courts and judicial forums. The object underlying the principle is that every court is not only entitled but is duty bound to protect itself from unscrupulous litigants who do not have any respect for truth and who try to pollute the stream of justice by resorting to falsehood or by making misstatement or by suppressing facts which have a bearing on adjudication of the issue(s) arising in the case".
9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we hold that since the complainant/appellant did not approach the State Commission with clean hands and rather tried to mislead it, it is not entitled to any relief whatsoever. Therefore, we would not like to interfere with the order of the State Commission dismissing the complaint. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with cost assessed at Rs.10,000/-.
10. The insurer shall be entitled to take back the original letter dated 25.5.2001 from the Registry after placing its certified copy on record. The said original letter, however, shall be preserved by the insurer and kept in safe custody, for a period of three years from today.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... PREM NARAIN MEMBER