National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Tirupati Balaji Cold Storage & Ice ... vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Anr. on 2 December, 2002
JUDGMENT
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (President)
1. In this complaint which pertains to insurance claim, there is a claim over Rs. 2.50 crores towards damages.
2. Written version has since been filed by the Insurance Company, first opposite party as well as by the Central Bank of India, second opposite party. Rejoinder thereto has also been filed. We have examined the matter. There is denial of the insurance policy altogether. Complaint raises complex questions of facts and law. Evidence both oral and documentary will have to be led. This complaint in our view cannot be decided in our summary jurisdiction. In this we are fortified with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Synco Industries v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Ors.--(2002) 2 SCC 1, where a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court observed as under:
"Given the nature of the claim in the complaint and the prayer for damages in the sum of rupees fifteen crores and for an additional sum of rupees sixty lakhs for covering the cost of travelling and other expenses incurred by the appellant, it is obvious that very detailed evidence would have to be led, both to prove the claim and thereafter to prove the damages and expenses. It is, therefore, in any event, not an appropriate case to be heard and disposed of in a summary fashion. The National Commission was right in giving to the appellant liberty to move the Civil Court. This is an appropriate claim for a Civil Court to decide and obviously, was not filed before a Civil Court to start with because, before the Consumer Forum, any figure in damages can be claimed without having to pay court fees. This, in that sense, is an abuse of the process of the Consumer Forum".
3. We will, therefore, not entertain this complaint and reject the same. However, we leave the complaint to go to Civil Court or any appropriate forum for the relief claimed. In that eventuality complaint may seek exclusion of time spent before this Commission, under Section 14 of the Limitation Act in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works v. PSG Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583.