State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Amit Gupta vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. on 17 December, 2007
IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under section 9 clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of decision: 17.12.2007 Appeal No.1675/2003 (Arising from the order dated 06.05.2003 passed by District Forum(Central), Kashmere Gate, Delhi in Complaint Case No.177/2002) Sh. Amit Gupta Appellant 212, State Bank Nagar, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent D.O. XXII, Padam Singh Road, Palmohan House, 4th Floor, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. CORAM: Justice J.D. Kapoor, ... President Ms. Rumnita Mittal Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice J.D. Kapoor, President(ORAL)
1. Claim of the appellant against insurance of vehicle covering risk of theft and damage due to accident was repudiated by the respondent company on the premise that the policy does not cover loss arising out of contractual liability. Consequently the appellant filed the instant complaint before District Forum.
2. Vide impugned order dated 06.05.2003, the District Forum dismissed the complaint without going into the merit of the allegations by observing that there are certain grey areas that cannot be gone into by the Forum and need detailed documentary and oral evidence.
3. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.
4. Relevant facts of the case, in brief are, that the appellant is engaged in the business of transportation of petroleum products and LPG gas, which he is running under the name and style of M/s. Laxmi Enterprises and operating from 2/12, State Bank Nagar, Outer Ring Road, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. It is the owner of truck bearing No.HR-38-A-1468 which he got comprehensively insured with the respondent for the period 07.01.199 to 06.01.2000. The premium paid was Rs.10,783/-. The said truck was stolen in the area of Ambala and FIR No.Nil under section 381 IPC was registered on 17.08.199 at PS Sadar, Ambala and appellant informed the respondent vide letter dated 20.08.1999 about the insured truck having been stolen and despite efforts the same could not be traced. The claim was lodged with the respondent who appointed surveyor who recommended the claim of Rs.3,20,000/- to which the appellant reluctantly agreed, though his claim was for a sum of Rs.4 lacs but the appellant was totally miffed when he received a letter from the respondent on 12.02.2001 repudiating the claim. So he claimed a sum of Rs.4,99,000/- besides interest which includes insured amount, compensation and other sundry expenses. Though the claim was for Rs.6,50,000/-, the same was restricted to Rs.4,99,000/- to bring the same within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum.
5. In its defence the respondent company averred that the insured truck was handed over to Ved Pal on contract basis which fact found mention in the report lodged with the police and statement made by the appellant on 21.04.2000 which fact has been confirmed by the surveyor in his report dated 06.06.2000. Since the present complaint has arisen out of contractual liability, the same is not payable under the terms and condition of the policy. The present compliant was not maintainable and is an abuse of process of law and no cause of action accrued in favour of the appellant. The appellant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and is guilty of suppressing material facts. Complicated question of law and facts are involved, which are beyond the purview of the District Forum, while deciding complaint in summary manner under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
6. Observations of the District Forum that the rival claims and contentions of the parties cannot be determined without detailed documentary and oral evidence because of the facts being of complicated nature are not at all justified. There was no such question of complicated nature of law and facts that could not have been gone into by the District Forum, nor was there any need for calling upon the parties to produce detailed evidence or evidence subjected to lengthy cross examination. The District Forum and the Commission are established under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Presidents and Members of the District Forum or for that purpose State Commission and National Commission are the persons who have wide and varied judicial experience and are of the rank of District Judge, High Court Judge and Supreme Court Judge.
7. In our view there was no such complicated or complex question of law and fact that could not be adjudicated by the District Forum. In the instant case the facts were very simple and the question for determination was whether there was any contractual liability of the respondent to indemnify the loss of the vehicle which was admittedly insured with the respondent company and surveyor was also appointed to assess the loss.
8. Foregoing reasons persuade us to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and send back the matter to the District Forum for deciding it afresh on merit.
9. The parties shall appear before District Forum on 18.01.2008 for the aforesaid purpose.
10. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith.
11. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced today on 17th day of December 2007 (Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member Tri