National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Ganesh Felts vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 11 November, 1992
JUDGMENT Y. Krishan, J.
(1) The Appellant-Complainant had lodged a claim of Rs. 1,60.000.00 against the Respondent- Insurance Company before the State Commission, Rajasthan on account of damage to the stocks of raw materials, process materials, semi-finished and finished goods in his factory caused by fire during the night between 3rd and 4th June 1989. The State Commission came to the finding that the loss suffered by the Appellant-Complainant on account of fire was to the extent ofRs.6.466.00 only as assessed by M/s. J.D. Gulshan & Co. appointed by the Respondent-Insurance Company to survey and assess the loss on account of fire.
(2) The grounds of attack against the order of the State Commission are that the State Commission has not taken into account the report of the spot survey conducted by the first surveyor Shri A.K. Dhamija on 5.6.89 nor the survey report of Shri D.R. Anand, second Surveyor and Loss Assessor and that the report of these surveyors were not produced before the State Commission and that the State Commission has been misled by the report of M/s. J.D. Gulshan & Co.
(3) From the perusal of the material in the paper books and in particular the order of the State Commission, the Memorandum of Appeal, the reply of the Respondent to the Memorandum of Appeal and the reports of the Surveyors, it is seen that the Respondent has attacked the bona fide of the claim made by the Appellant against the Insurance Company under the Fire Insurance Policy.
THEfire is reported to have broken out on the night intervening 3rd and 4th of June, 1989. The Insurance Company appointed Shri A.K. Dhamija as spot surveyor on Sunday the 4th of June, 1989 and he conducted the spot survey on the 5th of June, 1989 and submitted a report on 14th June, 1989.
2.The Respondent-Insurance Company appointed a second surveyor M/s. D.R. Anand on the 9th June. 1989 for a preliminarry/final survey and assessment of the loss. He had visited the factory on the 10th, 12th, 14th and 15th June, 1989 and submitted his report on 18th November, 1989. He advised the appointment of another Fire Surveyor to conduct a joint survey.
3.On 20th June, 1969 the Respondent-Insurer appointed M/s. J.D. Gulshan and Co. to undertake the survey, M/s. J.D. Gulshan and Co. conducted the survey along with Mr. D.R.Anand, second surveyor and took into account the spot survey conducted by Mr. Dhamija.
(4) The last surveyor in his report of 30th November, 1989 cast doubts on the genuineness of the claim made by the Appellant-Complainant under the policy of insurance. Though the cause of fire is said to have been caused either by spark or short circuit, but according to the surveyor the fire seemed to be due to a malicious act as the circumstances in which it broke out were suspicious.
(5) On the 20th June of 1989 the surveyor found machines, bags of cigarette filter v butts waste and raw materials damaged by fire but these items were said not to be present at the site of the fire on the 5th of June, 1989 as per there port of the spotsurvey conducted by Mr. Dhamija immediately after the fire on the 5th June, 1989, According to the surveyor M/s. J.D. Gulshan & Co. the appellant had planted the insured damaged articles on the spot after the fire.
(6) The books of accounts, inward and outward challans, invoice books, stock register of raw materials and finished goods, cash book, ledger etc.were not being maintained by the appellant for the last one and a half years and were found to be blank. In particular "the stock statements and the balance-sheets" submitted by the appellant tc the Bank of Rajasthan were not found to be genuine and the appellant could not produce any evidence about the existence of stocks at the site of fire.
(7) The monthly sales of the appellant had fallen down in the year 1989 as the same were nil for certain months after February, 1989. The adual waste of the salvage of the burnt goods was found to be inflated.
(8) Aperusal of the the reports of Mr. Dhamija and Mr.Anand shows that they were also quite adverse to the claim of the appellant.
(9) There is no merit whatsoever in the appeal against the order of the State Commission. The order of the State Commission is confirmed and the appeal is hereby dismissed. The appellent shall pay a sum of Rs. 4,000.00 as costs to the Respondent-Insurance Company.
(10) Prima facie the Appellant has lodged grossly inflated and false claim against the Respondent-Insurance Company arid has misused the machinery of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 to secure an undue amount amount from the Respondent-Insurer under the policy of insurance. We have already held in M/s. R.S. Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The United India Assurance Co. Ltd. (First Appeal No. 173 of 1991) that we will not allow the Consumer Protection Act which provides free adjudication to consumers to be misused for black- mailing suppliers of goods and hirees of services and secure unjust enrichment. We therefore, direct the Appellant to show cause why the Order of the State Commission awarding the Appellant a sum of Rs. 6,466.00 as the amount payable under the policy of insurance be not set aside in suo motu Revision and he be left to seek redress in the Civil Court, if so chooses. Issue notice of Revision to the Appellant.