National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Md. Hafizuddin, Mr. R.K. Choudhary vs United India Insurance Company, ... on 10 August, 2005
ORIGINAL PETITION NO NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 60 OF 1997 Md. Hafizuddin Complainant Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Opposite Party BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.B.SHAH, PRESIDENT. DR. P.D. SHENOY, MEMBER. For the Complainant : Mr. R.K. Choudhary, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. S.M. Suri, Advocate. (insurance Co.) For Allahabad Bank : Mr. Aamir Hasan Khan, Advocate For Mr. Ashim Vachher, Advocate. DATED: 10TH AUGUST, 2005 O R D E R
M.B.SHAH, J.
PRESIDENT It is the case of the Complainant that he is the proprietor of M/s. M.H.Textiles having its registered office at Islam Nagar (Naya Tola), Bhikhanpur, Gumti No.3, Bhagalpur, Bihar, dealing in the business of manufacturing and sale of silk fabrics specially of export variety of various types. He was engaged in the said business for several years and was receiving orders from various big exporters of the country for supply of silk fabrics and materials from time to time. In the year 1994 one Mr.Jagdish S. Grover, Proprietor of M/s.Tartons, New Delhi, a big export firm, had placed orders with the Complainant firm for manufacture and supply of silk fabrics (Matka-Noil) worth Rs.60,01,000/-. For this, an agreement was executed between the parties on 6.8.1994. Shri Grover handed over silk yarns worth Rs.5 lakhs to the Complainant in advance.
It was also agreed that Shri Grover would pay the amount of invoices from his cash credit account with Allahabad Bank, Bhagalpur Branch, Bihar.
On execution of the aforesaid agreement, the Complainant requested the Allahabad Bank, University Branch, Bhagalpur, Bihar to enhance his cash credit limit. The same was accepted and the cash credit limit was enhanced upto Rs.32 lakhs and O.D. (Over Draft) of Rs.6 lakhs was also given to the Complainant to meet the said order. For this, the entire stock of the Complainant was hypothecated with the said Bank. As per the norms the Bank was having monthly check of the stocks as well as stock-book, ledger, cash book, etc. which were regularly maintained by the Complainant.
As per the agreement, the Complainant was to deliver the goods to M/s. Tartons upto 30th November, 1994. The delivery schedule, thereafter, was extended upto 15th January, 1995, because of unavoidable circumstances and on the request of Mr.Grover.
The material manufactured by the Complainant was kept in the godown. Because of deteriorating law and order situation in that area, as the Complainant did not afford to take any risk, and the goods were very costly, an insurance policy for a sum of Rs.60 lakhs against burglary; Rs. 5 lakhs against furniture and fittings, was taken for the period from 26th December, 1994 to 25th December, 1995. The cover note of the insurance policy is produced on record (Annexure D). He also took another policy against fire for the same period. The cover note is Annexure D-1.
The entire goods were ready for supply on 25th December, 1994 and the Complainant was waiting for arrival of the representative of M/s.Tartons to take delivery of the goods. The law and order situation was bad and the Complainant was anxious about this. On 2nd January, 1995 he received a telephone call from an unknown person asking him to pay a ransom of Rs.5 lakhs at a place near Yogia River near a Palm Tree at 7. p.m., and threatened the Complainant of dire consequences if there was failure. The Complainant informed the local police and lodged the information with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, Bihar, but in vain. Thereafter, during the intervening night of 5th and 6th January, 1995, armed dacoits raided the house and godown of the Complainant, when he was sleeping, and at the pistol point took away the cash, ornaments as well as the major portion of the stock of silk fabrics which was kept ready for supply, which was hypothecated with the Bank. The dacoits with the intention to kill the Complainant fired at him with the pistol on his chest, but the bullet hit the Complainant on his left arm. Because of the injury he became unconscious and was admitted to J.L.N.Medical College & Hospital, Bhagalpur for treatment. During the treatment, the police recorded his statement on 6th January, 1995 at 4.30 a.m. and a case was registered. Investigation started and the Police submitted its final report.
As the Complainant was lying in the hospital his nephew sent a written information to the Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company at Bhagalpur about the occurrence of the incident.
On receiving the information, the Insurance Company appointed Shri Naveen Chandra Jha as the Surveyor. Thereafter, the Insurance Company appointed M/s.Mookerjee Biswas & Pathak, Calcutta, as Surveyors, to assess the loss occurred to the Complainant. The Surveyor, Mr. Navin Chandra Jha visited the site on 7.1.1995 and submitted his report. As the Complainant was under severe financial stress due to interest burden of the bank which was increasing day-by-day, he wrote a number of letters to the Insurance Company for settlement of his claim. For some reason or the other, the Complainant was informed on 5th June, 1996 that the Surveyors would visit again 17th June, 1996 to carry out the balance inspection-cum-survey job. He remained present on 17th June, 1996, but nobody from the Insurance Company turned up. On his inquiry on 18th June, 1996, he was informed that the Surveyors would come in the first week of July, 1996.
As the claim was kept pending for months together, the Complainant filed this complaint before this Commission on 4.3.1997, wherein it has been prayed that the Insurance Company be directed to pay Rs.38 lakhs for the loss suffered by it with compound interest with quarterly rests at the rate of 18.75% p.a. as per the prevailing bank rules; and, further, an amount of Rs.17 lakhs together with accrued interest at the rate of 18% p.a., Rs.5 lakhs for harassment, inconvenience, loss of business, mental agony; and Rs.1 lakh towards costs.
Written version of the Insurance Company:
In the written version it is contended by the Insurance Company that the Complainant refused to assist and cooperate in the process of the claim. From time to time the officers of the Insurance Company have approached the Complainant to show interest in the process of the claim and in the absence of cooperation, submission of documents, verification of the case and the further information, the surveyor was not in a position to submit the final report. The Opposite Party placed reliance on its letter dated 27.8.1996 addressed to the Complainant, wherein they have highlighted the inaction on the part of the Complainant in not cooperating with the Surveyor in finalisation of final survey report and also requested the Complainant to make himself available before 7th September, 1996 to extend his cooperation in finalising the report. It is also stated that after having received information with regard to the incident, the Insurance Company vide letter dated 15.1.1995 asked the Complainant to furnish the following information:
(i) Estimated loss;
(ii) Certified copy of FIR;
(iii) Claim Form duly filled;
(iv) Policy Copy/Cover note.
Thereafter, vide letter dated 17/18.4.1995 while making a reference to the previous letter dated 29.3.1995 requesting for submission of the papers the Complainant was again approached to submit the papers which were notified as under:
(i) Copies of Sales Bills from 1.4.1994 to 31.1.1995
(ii) Loan sanction letter from Bank, original and enhanced;
(iii) Details of residual stock after burglary since sent for sale and a confirmation from the purchaser of such material;
(iv) Medical Officer/Hospital report regarding injury/treatment;
(v) Statement of his personal expenses and in case during the above period;
(vi) Copy of purchase order for purchasing silk fabrics.
Thereafter, the Complainant was again approached vide letter dated 28.7.1996. Reliance is also placed on 64 UM (2) of the Insurance Act, 1938, according to which the loss has to be surveyed and the amount of claim is to be assessed; and, on the basis of the survey report, the Insurance Company has to apply its mind while adverting to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, for settlement of the claim.
There is no deficiency in service as the Complainant has yet to submit the documents and the required information to the surveyors. Hence it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed and the Complainant be directed to comply with the requirements to enable the surveyor to finalise his report, whereafter the insurers may be granted six months time to process the claim and communicate their decision to the insured.
It is also submitted that:
(a) The final surveyors, M/s. Mukherje Biswas & Pathak, Calcutta, could not finalise their report, because the Complainant did not produce before them the required information;
(b) As per Mr. N.C.Jha, Preliminary surveyor, there was no forcible entry; under the burglary policy, the claim is payable only when there is forcible entry.
(c) As per the Investigating Officer, a retired Deputy S.P., C.B.I, the whole incident was stage managed only to derive the pecuniary advantage from the Insurance Company; and
(d) The Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur has issued a letter to the Insurance Company to keep the claim pending as they suspect that the Complainant committed fraud to cheat the Insurance Company.
In view of the above, the Opposite Party once again submitted that the Complainant be directed to comply with the requirements, assist the surveyor and the insurers to process the claim and to enable the Opposite Party to take a decision under the terms and conditions of the policy, and the complaint be dismissed with necessary directions to the Complainant.
Reply to the written version:
To this the Complainant filed his reply to the objections of the Insurance Company and denied them.
It is the say of the Complainant that the inordinate delay in settlement of the claim is due to non-cooperation and negligence on the part of the Insurance Company. It is stated that on 8.1.95 Mr.N.C.Jha,Surveyor, appointed by the Insurance Company inspected all the documents; the Complainant sent all the documents on 23.1.1995 as required by the Opposite Party vide its letter dated 23.1.1995. Thereafter, the Complainant wrote a letter on 21.10.1995 requesting the Opposite Party for early settlement of the claim. A reply to the same was sent by Opposite Party stating that they were pursuing the Surveyors for an early report. The Complainant received a letter dated 1.3.1996 from the Insurance Company asking the Complainant about the time and date of meeting with the surveyors. To this letter the Complainant replied vide letter dated 15.3.1996. The surveyor did not turn up on 17.6.1996, though the Insurance Company informed the Complainant vide letter dated 5.6.1996 that the surveyors would visit on 17.6.1996. The Complainant informed this fact to the Insurance Company vide letter dated 18.6.1996. Even on 10/ 11th July, 1996, the surveyors did not visit in spite of the Complainant being present on that day. Since there was no response, the Complainant filed this Complainant before this Commission on 4.3.1997.
On 30.4.1997 the Complainant received a letter from the Regional Office of the Opposite Party at Patna informing the Complainant that no action in the matter could be taken as the matter is sub-judice before the National Commission. Thereafter, on 3.6.1997, the Complainant received two letters dated 11.4.1997 and 29.5.1997 from the Divisional Office, Bhagalpur Branch of the Opposite Party, asking the Complainant to confirm a probable date of visit of the Surveyors and also for furnishing of certain papers. The Complainant, in reply to the above two letters of the Divisional Office, vide his letter dated 16.6.1997, brought the contents of the letter dated 30.4.1997 received from the Regional Office of the Opposite Party, to the notice of the Divisional Office. In view of the above, the Complainant states that he had never refused to render any assistance to the Opposite Parties, and, in fact, it is they who were non-cooperative and negligent in not performing their duties.
The Complainant further states that the report of Mr.Jha, Investigator, and the letter from the ASP about not proceeding in the matter have no value in the eye of law, as they have been received after the submission of the final survey report.
Relevant documentary evidence:
(a) Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.:
In the final report under Section 173 of the Cr.PC submitted by the Investigating Officer, it has been, inter alia, stated that the case was registered against an unknown person under Sections 307, 460, 380 read with Section 34 of the IPC with regard to the incident on the intervening night of 5th and 6th January, 1995. As per the said report, the informant was sleeping in his constructed house. Suddenly 8 to 10 persons entered into the house at about 11.30 p.m. and by pointing the pistol at him demanded key and Rs.5 lakhs. On refusal to comply with the demand, the accused fired on the informant which hit the arm of the informant and caused him injury. Thereafter, they looted Rs.20,000/-
cash from almirah and silk fabrics and a brief case from the godown and fled away. On the occurrence night the informant was alone in his house. It is stated that incident spot has been investigated under the supervision of the D.S.P. Law and Order and the case was found true. But, the S.P. found this case true but without clue under Sections 395, 397, I.P.C. In future also there is no possibility of getting any clue in this case.
(b). Secondly, the Complainant produced agreement dated 6.8.1994 between the Complainant and Shri Jagdish S. Grover of M/s. Tartans, Delhi, whereby the Complainant has agreed to supply silk fabrics worth Rs.60.01 lakhs on or before 30th November, 1994, at the rate mentioned therein. For this, an advance of Rs.5 lakhs was given to the Complainant. In that agreement there is identification by Kishore Kumar Singh, Advocate.
(c). Thirdly, on the basis of the aforesaid agreement, Allahabad Bank, University Branch, Bhagalpur, had extended the credit limit to Rs.32 lakhs. The Bank by its letter dated 7.10.1994 had increased the cash credit limit to Rs.32.60 lakhs from Rs.13.50 lakhs against hypothecation of the stock, book debts and other assets, which we are not required to refer. This is enhanced on the application of the Complainant.
(d) Medical Inquiry Certificate:
The Medical Certificate issued by Dr. M.C.Choudhry states that he had examined Md. Hafuzuddin, aged 39 years, s/o late Md. Aziz of village Khiribandh, P.S. Jagdishpur, Distt.
Bhagalpur, at 3.00 a.m. on 6.1.1995 with injuries on his person, i.e. a located on the left upper arm in diameter; a bullet simulating metallic substance was taken out from the wound and handed over with injury report; the weapon used was fire arm; the nature of injury is simple. This report also contains an endorsement to the effect that sealed vial containing bullet is also received with the signature of the person who received the same.
(e). On record the Complainant has produced an audited balance sheet.
Now, at this stage, we would refer to the surveyors reports as elucidated below:
Survey reports:
.1. Navin Chandra Jha, dt.
10.3.1995 (pp.199-206) .2. Sristidhar Jha, Investigator, dt. 01.03.1995 (pp.177-192) .3. M/s. Mookherjee, Biswas & Pathak, dt.
24.12.1997.(pp.107-123) .4. Chandra Sekhara Prasad dt. 12.5.1999 (pp.124-135) .1. Preliminary Survey report of Shri Navin Chandra Jha, dt.
10.3.1995 (Dates of survey conducted: 7.1.95, 8.1.95 and 28.2.95.) (pp.199-206) Shri Navin Chandra Jha, Preliminary Surveyor, visited the premises on 7th January, 8th January and 28th February of 1995. He has submitted his report on 10th March, 1995. In the report he has stated that the unit has not started its production as his banker has not supplied the required machine, but procured the finished goods for marketing purpose. As stated by the insured, he was purchasing the finished goods from local weavers and was supplying the goods to the markets like Delhi, Calcutta and Bombay as per the demand in bulk.
The insureds premises is located inside the Khiribandh village at a distance of 100 meters connected with main Bhagalpur-Dumka Road and the premises is surrounded by a 10 feet boundary wall. The insured stated that at the time of the incident he was sleeping in the unfinished hall on a wooden chowki and all the doors, windows of the main building were properly closed. At the threat administered by the dacoits who were 8 to 10 persons, he opened the showroom-cum-godown as well as bedroom. Three dacoits surrounded him and the remaining were lifting the silk stocks. One person demanded Rs.5 lakhs and when he refused to pay, he shot the complainant who fell unconscious. The Complainant admitted that he was not aware as to how the dacoits got access into his house.
With regard to the incident the surveyor has stated that no marks of forcible entry were observed. The Surveyor felt that the dacoits might have entered the premises by scaling down the boundary wall from the side of open vast agricultural land. He has noted that no one else was sleeping in the premises at the relevant time. On 7.1.1995 when he visited the premises the insured was recovering on the bed after being discharged from the hospital. He has stated that several local people verbally confirmed about the incident of dacoity and loss of stock. However, he doubted that such a large quantity of silk fabrics could be carried away by the dacoits within two and half hours and that it requires investigation.
On the basis of the books of accounts kept by the insured, the Surveyor assessed the probable loss at Rs.51,91,8975/- by taking into account the value 15,975 meters of cloth at Rs.325/- per meter.
.2. Report of Sristidhar Jha, Ex. Dy. S.P., C.B.I. Investigator, dt. 01.03.1995 (pp.177-192) (Investigation was conducted on 10.2.1995 and 11.2.1995) Thereafter, Sristidhar Jah, Investigator submitted his report on 10th March, 1995.
At the initial stage he has stated that the insured has not produced any insurance policy nor has given the name of the Insurance Company with which he had earlier insured before taking the current insurance policy. His conclusions are as under:
Conclusions :
From the facts and circumstances gathered in course of inquiry the commission of burglary and theft appears suspicious and simulated one on the following grounds:-
i) No marks of violence was found ( subject to confirmation by Police I.O).
ii) The Insured admitted that he was sleeping on the inner veranda which was without any door- shutters.
iii) That he was quite alone in his house on the night of occurrence.
iv) That it was quite unbelievable that a person who was threatened only three days ago (2.1.95) over telephone would dare to remain quite alone by sending his wife, mother and children to some other village;
v) That no step was taken by him when there was a property worth over rupees sixty lakhs in his house/ godown and would live there alone in the night;
vi) That the occurrence was supported by the persons who were found to be his associates per application of Mohd. Quaom discussed above.
It was Mohd. Shamsher khan who informed the Police over phone about the occurrence.
Even in the hospital Mohd. Shahid Akhtar was present when the Police recorded the statement of Mohd. Hafizuddin.
In course of enquiry by the Investigator Sri Munawwar Ali had proved the occurrence.
vii) That as per injury report, the doctor had found only one gun-shot injury over his left arm from where the billet was extracted and made over to the police.
The possibility of its being self-inflicted injury cannot be ruled out in view of his letter dated 30.12.1994 (Annexure 16) as the bank was pressing hard for settlement of account.
viii) It was also transpired that the insured had tried his best to obtain loan from the bank by false representation for which Mohd. Quayyum had filed a complaint case before Bhagalpur (subject to verification from Court records)?
There are reasonable doubts that in order to settle the over draft of the bank, he might have got insured his property with the Insurance Company and created a scene of burglary/robbery so that claims compensation may be taken from the Insurance Company for which he was making serious efforts.
As the amount involved is a large one (Rs.55.00 lakhs) it would be better to request the A.D.G.., C.I.D. Bihar to get the case investigated by police under its control in order to arrive at right conclusion.
.3. M/s. Mookherjee, Biswas & Pathak, dt.
24.12.1997. (pp.107-123) (Dates of survey : 7.3.1995 etc.) Thereafter, M/s. Mookherjee, Biswas & Pathak submitted their report dated 24.12.1997.
They have stated that it gave them an impression that the Insureds claim was based on simulted and preplanned scheme conceived by the Insured, Md. Hafizuddin.
It is on evidence that Md. Hafizuddin had received a phone call from an unknown person on 2.1.95 asking him to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs on the next day;
otherwise, his life would be in danger. It is stated that Md.Hafizuddin had informed about this phone call to the police station as well as the telephone office. In spite of all this prior threatening, it was surprising that Md. Hafizuddin felt it safe to be alone in his residence (place of incident) on the night of 5/6.1.95 and was allegedly sleeping in semi-constructed hall room in his premises with all the doors and windows open, since no door or windows had been put in place. Once inside the boundary wall any body could reach him in the hall room without any hindrance. It is stated that he was sleeping on a cot in that hall room in spite of the fact that other rooms of his premises had locking arrangements and he could have slept inside in any of those secured rooms by bolting from inside. This is especially so since all the inmates (his wife and children) were away to some other village and he was alone in the premises with the materials, according to him, worth about Rs.60 lakhs. It is also to be remembered that January was the height of the winter season and all sides being open he still preferred to sleep in the hall room avoiding other rooms with locking devices.
The Surveyors have stated that during the burglary 15,975 meters of cloth weighing 6,390 kgs was taken away by the dacoits. It would take 5 hours and 20 minutes. But, the Complainant stated that everything was done in 2.30 hours. The Surveyors have expressed a doubt as to how the dacoits brought the goods outside the boundary wall, without breaking any door.
They (the surveyors) met one Shamsher Mistry alias Shamad Khan of Village Khiribandh in July, 1996. Shamsher Mistry stood guarantee to the Complainants term loan as well as cash credit loan account with the bank. According to Mistry out of the four major sellers of yarn/fabrics, two are his sons, one is his close relative and the fourth one is a poor man, and this was done just to utilise the loan facilities.
According to Shamsher Mistry for the alleged incident Md. Hafizuddin had probably used a country made fire arm to inflict an injury in his left arm to prove the genuineness of the narrated incident.
Incidentally, according to Shamsher Mistry, Mr.Jagdish S.Grover of M/s. Tartans of New Delhi with whom Md.Hafizuddin (M H Textiles) had entered into a sale contract on 6.8.1994 was also an unreliable person with no actual sale/purchase in mind.
In the course of checking of available records it was noticed by the Surveyors that during the period 20.6.1994 to 19.8.1994 MH Textiles sold fabrics of 9148 mtrs in 17 bills total value of which amounted to Rs.31,93,000/-. Out of the 17 bills payments of only 3 bills (2 bills against Mr.Grover) were received by cheque and the rest were in cash. The total value of the 3 bills received by cheque was only Rs.1,80,000/-.
It is also to be noticed that M/s.Tartans had settled their bills by cheques dated 24th and 25.6.1994 which were cleared and credited in the bank account on 27.6.1994.
The question naturally arises as to why MH Textiles had received payment of Rs.30,13,000/- in cash in settlement of 14 other bills. It is particularly so, as they found from the bank statement that equal amount of each cash deposit was withdrawn from the said bank account mostly on the same day.
The Surveyors have concluded that the records of the Complainant were not reliable and due to non-cooperation of the insured, the entries could not be verified and thus left doubt about their authenticity.
.4. Report of Chandra Sekhara Prasad, Investigator, dt.12.5.1999 (pp.124-135) (Investigation was done on 8th to 10th October, 1998 and from 12th to 14th January, 1990) The conclusions reached by him are as under:
Conclusion:
As the Insured completely failed to produce the purchasers and sellers, by means of giving the respective addresses of the individual, it may be concluded that their sales and purchases are all, imaginary and the account depending over the same are all forged and fabricated.
The circumstances under which the Insured claimed loss, is not at all convincing due to a number of reasons observed at each and every stage of Survey and Investigation. Besides, neither entry nor exit to/from the premises is influenced with any kind of force so that whatever being genuine or forged circumstances behind loss, may be defined in Burglary category.
Non-turning up of the Insured before us so far standing independent bodies and refusal of considerable number of correspondences through Regd. Post/Courier establishes that the Insured has practically no morale to face the individual, due to their forced and fabricated base.
The Insured appears exhausted the loan or cash credit facility of the bank in different ways and finds himself unable to repay under heavy pressure of the latter. Such reason would have compelled them to fabricate the episode but due to being itself not genuine, left a number of grounds which establish facts behind the same.
Recommendations:
Considering the above conclusions as well as comments and remarks at a glance, I recommend the claim produced by the Insured not only to repudiate the claim but also to take appropriate action against the Insured.
Findings:
Considering the aforesaid Surveyors reports it cannot be said that the stand taken by the Insurance Company in repudiating the claim is in any way unjustified or unreasonable. It appears that the story of burglary does not appear to be probable. If there was a genuine contract between the Complainant and M/s.Tartans, New Delhi, there was no reason for the Complainant not to send the matka silk whether manufactured or purchased from the market. No doubt, Md. Shamser Mistry, has changed his version stated before the Surveyors, in the affidavit tendered before this Commission and has stated that his two sons and one Chand Alam were agents who used to purchase silk yarn from the tiny small weavers for Md.Hafizuddin, Proprietor of M/s. M.H. Textiles. He has also stated that the decoits looted away the huge stock of silk cloth. He has also informed the Surveyors that Md. Hafizuddin was a good businessman, but after the commission of dacoity he had been ruined. It is admitted that the Complainant was not manufacturing the silk but was purchasing the same from the market. In such circumstances, there was no reason to pile up the stock in his premises.
All the Surveyors have stated that it was not possible to remove such huge stock worth Rs.60 lakhs within two and half hours. This inference, in our view, is justifiable. Further there is nothing on record to establish that there was forcible entry in the premises. How the dacoits entered the premises is not known. Even the investigating officers have stated that no case of dacoity is made out. Nodoubt they have filed a challan for offences punishable under Section 380 and others under Section 173 of Cr.P.C.. Further, the Superintendent of Police of Bhagalpur in his letter to the Insurance Company directed to keep the claim pending as they have suspected that the Complainant committed fraud to cheat the Insurance Company.
In the affidavit filed by the Manager, Regional Office of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., it has been stated that a complaint was received from Ex-MP, Mr. Raj Bahadur about the foul play being played by the insured. The Insurance Company deputed Shri Sristidhar Jha, (Retd.), Ex. Dy. Superintendent of Police, CBI, Patna to investigate the matter in detail. As per the report dated 1st March, 1995, he came to the conclusion that the loss in question was stage-managed and that the Complainant had enacted a drama to take undue pecuniary advantage from the Insurance Company. They have also relied upon the letter issued by the Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur to keep the claim pending because they suspected that M/s. M.H. Textiles had committed fraud to cheat the Insurance Company. That letter is dated 13th March, 1996.
It is true that the Complainant had prepared the books of accounts in support of his claim that he has purchased the Matka silk but as stated to the Surveyor by the witness, Shamsher Mistri, the Complainant had probably used a country made fire arm to inflict injury on his left hand to prove the genuineness of the incident narrated. Mistri has also stated that M/s.Jagdish S. Grover with whom the alleged sale contract was executed was an unreliable person and there was no actual intention of sale and purchase. The so called purchases are from four persons, out of whom two are his sons, one is his close relative and the fourth one is a poor man. Fourth surveyor in his report has also stated that the insured completely failed to produce the purchasers and sellers, by means of giving the respective addresses of the individual; therefore, it may be concluded that their sales and purchases are all, imaginary and the accounts depending over the same are all forged and fabricated.
Considering these facts, it cannot be held that the repudiation of the claim by the Insurance Company is unjustified In the result we dismiss this complaint. There shall be no order as to costs.
However, we make it clear that if complainant is having any other evidence it would be open to him to approach the civil court for the same relief.
Sd/-
J. (M.B.SHAH) PRESIDENT Sd/-
..
(P.D.SHENOY) MEMBER