The State Commission does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes involving contractual obligations, liabilities, or claims under an insurance policy. Such disputes should be adjudicated by a Civil Court.

Mr. Justice R.N. Mittal, President — Briefly, the case of the complainant is that her husband purchased a new Tata Truck in the year, 1982. It was registered by the Registering Authority and numbered as UPP-8645. He transferred that truck in the name of the complainant subsequently and the Registering Authority registered That in her name. The registration number was then changed to DIL-2562. The said truck required heavy repairs and for that purpose she arranged a loan of Rs. 50,000/- from M/s Sanjit Finance Company, New Delhi. On 3rd November, 1986, the vehicle was got insured with the respondent for comprehensive risk for the period from 3rd November, 1986 to 2nd November, 1987.

2. The vehicle was got duly repaired in November, 1986. The complainant, it is pleaded, found the truck missing from the place where it was parked alongwith registration book and insurance policy, which had been kept in the truck. On enquiry she was informed by some neighbours that Shri R.C. Misra had taken away the truck and one bearded person was driving the same. She lodged a report about the theft with the police at Police Station, Ghaziabad. On 12th December, 1986, she also reported about the theft of the truck to R.T.O. Delhi and the Insurance Co. Shri R.C. Misra was arrested by the police and was challaned under Section 379 of the Cr. P.C.

3. That the respondent appointed Sh. Deepak Anand, Surveyor to survey and investigate her claim. It is alleged that the Surveyor did not make full enquiry and delayed the matter and ultimately she was informed by the respondent vide letter dated 10m August, 1989 that her claim could not be paid by the insurance. She claimed Rs. 1,60,000/- from the respondent on account of the price of the truck. She further claimed interest on Rs. 1,60,000/- @ 18% per annum from 12.12.86 to 7.8.90, the date of filing the complaint, amounting to Rs. 1,05,258/-. Consequently, she filed a complaint for recovery of the total amount of Rs. 2,65,258/- with future interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till the date of payment of the amount

4. The complaint has been contested by the Insurance Company. They have inter alia pleaded that the State Commission could try the complaint received from the insured persons, if there was any deficiency, fault, imperfection shortcoming in the nature and manner of performance of the service provided by the underwriters but it could not determine the contractural obligations, liabilities or claims under the policy or the contract. ‘Service’ does include the settlement of the claim of the insurer. It is alleged that the claim in the present case had been processed and was repudiated and therefore, no cause of action arose to the complaint against the respondent.

5. With regard to transfer of the truck in favour of the complainant by her husband, it was pleaded by the Insurance Company that they were informed by the husband that the complainant got the said truck transferred in her name by fraud and by producing false and forged documents with the motive of depriving him of his self acquired property. He also stated that he had never signed any letter to transfer the vehicle in her name. He therefore, requested that the claim be not paid to the complainant.

6. The respondent has further pleaded that it was discovered from the investigation by the Surveyor that out of loan raised by the complainant from the financers, she repaid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the financers within a span of 25 days from the date of raising the loan and out of that amount an amount of Rs. 40,000/- was paid to the financers from the account of Shri R.C. Misra. Thereafter, Sh. R.C. Misra tried to sell the vehicle to one Shri Swami Manhara Nand at Varanasi. The Transport Authority there started making enquiries regarding the truck. Shri Misra in that situation slipped away from there. It is next pleaded, that the abovesaid facts go to show that the matter is complicated and the claim of the complainant