The court's decision emphasized the need for disputes over rejected insurance claims to be adjudicated before a civil court, based on a previous decision that concluded the insurance company had fully investigated and rejected the claim.

Mr. Justice R.N. Mittal, President—The complainant has pleaded in the complaint that they were carrying on the business as cloth merchants. They got the goods insured with the defendants. It is alleged that on the night of 13/14th January, 1988, theft took place in the shop and goods were stolen. He filed a claim before the Insurance Company which was rejected. Consequently, he filed a complaint before the Commission for recovery of Rs. 85,514/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and Rs. 10,000/- as damages.

2. The claim has been contested by the respondents. They have inter alia pleaded thai the Insurance Co. after investigating the claim of the complainant rejected the same. They further stated that in view of the rejection of the claim by them this Commission should not entertain the complaint.

3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It is not necessary to dilate on the matter as it stands concluded by a decision of the National Commission in M/s Janta Machine Tools v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., I (1991) CPJ 234 (NC). The relevant observations of the Commission are as follows: -

"From the facts disclosed by the record and particularly the averments contained in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent it is seen that the Insurance Company had fully investigated into the claim put forward by the complainant, got surveys conducted and had finally come to the conclusion that the claim put forward by the complainant was false and accordingly informed the complainant that his claim was rejected. Thus, this is not a case where the Insurance Company did not take prompt and necessary steps for deciding the claim under the policies of insurance. It may be that the complainant is not satisfied with the said rejection of his claim by the Insurance Company. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and the nature of the controversy between the parties we consider that this is a matter that should be adjudicated before a civil Court where the complainant as well as the respondent will have ample opportunities to examine witnesses at length, take out Commission for local inspections etc. and have an elaborate trial of the case."

4. The above observations are applicable to the present case.

5. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the complaint subject to the observation that the complainant may seek redressal in the civil Court, if so advised. No order as to costs.

Complaint dismissed.