National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Khatau Haji Ibrahim Rumi Anr. vs New India Assurance Co. & Anr. on 31 January, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 173 OF 2011 (Against the Order dated 12/01/2011 in Complaint No. 107/2004 of the State Commission Maharashtra) 1. KHATAU HAJI IBRAHIM RUMI ANR. MR.KASAM HASAM RUMI
HAVING THEIR REGISTERED OFFICE AT :MOTA SALAYA MANDVI KUTCH MANDVI KUTCH GUJARAT-370465 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. & ANR. REGISTERED AND HEAD OFFICE AT :NEW INDIA ASSURANCE BUILDINGS 87,M.G.ROAD,FORT MUMBAI -400001 MAHARASTRA 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. GANDHIDHAM D.O. :- 211600,1ST FLOOR,M.R.SHAH CHAMBERS,TAGORE MARG GANDHIDHAM-370201 GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN,PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER
For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate and
Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
Dated : 31 Jan 2018 ORDER
ORDER (ORAL)
Challenge in this First Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by the Complainants is to the order dated 12.01.2011, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Mumbai (for short "the State Commission") in Complaint Case No.04/107. By the impugned order, -2- the State Commission has dismissed the Complaint filed by the Appellants against the Respondent, namely, New India Assurance Company Limited (for short "the Insurance Company") on the ground that the Complainants did not co-operate with the Surveyor as also with the Insurance Company for facilitating processing of their claim. In the Complaint, it was alleged that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company, in not taking a final decision on the claim preferred by the Complainants on 14.11.2000, for indemnification of the loss suffered by them under the Marine Hull Insurance Policy, obtained by them from the Insurance Company, on account of sinking of the Insured ship in an accident on 05.11.2000.
2. For the sake of ready reference, the material portion of the impugned order is extracted below:
"In totality of the circumstances, we are finding that complainant did not co-operate with the surveyor and opp.party-insurance company to enable it to process the claim. There were several letters sent by J. Basheer & Associates Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. to the complainant to provide one information or other, but complainant failed to provide the requisite information. What is pertinent to note is the fact that if as per United Nations resolution the trading with Iran by all the nations who are members of United Nations was banned, how it is that complainant had undertaken the contract with Iran to carry goods from Dubai to Iran port and vice-versa. The complainant had not valid reasons to throw light on this query. So, there was impasse between the parties and ultimately, when insurance company found that complainant had moved this Commission by filing complaint, they sent repudiation letter on 25/03/2005."
(emphasis supplied)
3. Hence, the Appeal.
-3-4. Since, having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record, we are convinced that the Complaint ought not to have been dismissed with the observation, highlighted above, on merits without affording an opportunity to the Complainants to adduce evidence to rebut the stand of the Insurance Company about their non-co-operation, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts giving rise to the filing of the Complaint. Evidently, the occasion to file the Complaint arose as till the date of filing of the Complaint sometime in the year 2004, the Insurance Company had not communicated to the Complainants any decision on the claim preferred by them as far back as on 14.11.2000. Hence, having failed to receive any response from the Insurance Company, the Complainants were hardly left with any option but to file the Complaint, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in not processing their claim. In the Complaint, a direction was sought to the Insurance Company to pay the amounts as mentioned in the Complaint. Pertinently, the Insurance Company passed the final order on the following directions issued by the State Commission vide its order dated 05.10.2010:
"Admittedly, this was the sinking claim and it is the grievance of the opponent that complainant has not submitted the documents which they and their surveyor had sought from him and it is the contention of Counsel for the complainant that whatever the documents they were having they have submitted and they could not submit any further documents. In the circumstances, it is the duty of the insurance company to allow the claim or to repudiate the claim. At this juncture, we are hearing this part-heard -4- matter, we direct the insurance company to put a clear cut case before us i.e. either to repudiate the claim or shall close the file as "No Claim" since complainant has not filed vital documents as Marine Casualty etc. within period of four weeks. Insurance company is directed to issue "No Claim" or repudiation letter as per their sweet choice. Matter s/o to 22/11/2010 at 2.00 p.m."
5. In deference to the said order, vide their letter dated 25.03.2005, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim on five grounds enumerated in the said letter and placed the order on record of the Complaint. As the case was listed for final hearing on 22.11.2010, the said letter of repudiation of the claim was taken on record; written arguments were filed on behalf of the Complainants and the final order was reserved by the State Commission, without hearing further oral arguments.
6. It is manifest that when the Complaint was filed, the Insurance Company had not taken any decision on the claim filed by the Appellants. As noted above, the claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company, only when during the pendency of the Complaint before the State Commission, it had directed the Insurance Company to take a final decision one way or the other. It is evident that before taking final decision on the claim, no opportunity of hearing was given to the Appellants by the Insurance Company to put forth their stand on the points on which the claim has now been repudiated. Assuming for the sake of argument that the Complainants did not specifically pray for an opportunity to either amend the Complaint or lead additional -5- evidence in support of their claim and meet the grounds on which the claim had been repudiated, yet in our opinion, the manner in which the claim has been repudiated, the repudiation of the claim, without adequate opportunity of hearing, was clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice. Significantly, even the Surveyor's report, which had been relied upon in the letter of repudiation, had not been supplied to the Complainants.
7. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that in the light of the subsequent events, an opportunity ought to have been granted to the Complainants to amend the Complaint and lead additional evidence, to rebut the material used against them by the Insurance Company to repudiate their claim.
8. Consequently, the Appeal is allowed; the impugned order is set aside and the Complaint is restored to the Board of the State Commission for fresh adjudication on merits after providing adequate opportunity to the Complainants to amend the Complaint and file additional evidence, if so advised. It will also be open to the Insurance Company to file additional evidence in rebuttal.
9. Since the Complaint was filed as far as in the year 2004, we request the State Commission to take a final decision in the Complaint as expeditiously as practicable, preferably within six months from the date of filing of the additional evidence by both the parties.
-6-10. The Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
11. Parties/their Counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 20.03.2018 for further proceedings, in accordance with law.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER