Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President—Whether the Consumer must necessarily come with clean hands before the redressal agencies under the Consumer Protection Act — is the significant, threshold question in this complaint Equally at issue is the scope of interference on the ground of deficiency in service allegedly arising from an insurance contract.

2. For the purposes of the twin question aforesaid (and also because of the added factor that herein we are relegating the complainant to his ordinary civil remedies at law) it is now unnecessary to delve too deeply into the facts or meticulously examine the intricacies, if the merits of the tangled controversy between the parties. It suffices to mention that the complainant firm of M/s. Sandley Industries Private Limited (through their partner Sushil Kumar) has raised a claim of Rs. 6,09,088/- only against their insurer the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. The broad outline of the complaint is that M/s. Sandley Industries carry on the business of manufacturing Zinc from Zinc Ash and cyclone in their factory premises located at Hisar. The firm had insured its chemicals slock stored in the shed with the Insurance Company under a fire policy ‘C’ up to a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- vide Annexure C-l. Admittedly the said fire policy excluded from its scope any loss or damage to the property occasioned by its own fermentation, natural heating, or spontaneous combustion or by its undergoing heating or drying process. According to the complainant on the 25th of February, 1990 at about 10 p.m. the factory Chowkidar noticed some smoke coming out from the storage shed thereof in which Zinc cyclone in polythene bags and other materials were lying. He informed Narinder Sharma, a partner of the firm who immediately telephoned the fire brigade and it is their case that they requested them to use the water carefully as its contact with Zinc Cyclone stored in the shed would result in a strong chemical reaction. However, the fire brigade pumped a huge quantity of water in the shed to extinguish the fire.

3. The complainant firm informed the Oriental Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Insuring Company) about the incident on the following day and they immediately appointed a surveyor to assess the loss who forthwith visited the premises on the 26th and 27th of February, 1990 and even on subsequent dates thereafter. The complainant firm also lodged a F.I.R. with the local Police Station on the 26th of February, 1990 a true copy of which is annexed as C-2. The complainants inevitably filed an insurance claim with their insurer expeditiously on the 28th of February, 1990 vide exhibit R-2 admittedly signed by Shri N.K. Sharma, a partner of the complainant firm in which the net amount claimed was Rs. 1,33,122/- plus Rs. 270/-. However, this claim was rejected by the Insurance Company vide Annexure C-3 dated the 5th of September, 1990 on the ground that the alleged cause of the fire was self-combustion which was not covered by the terms of the fire policy issued to the complainants and consequently the claim was repudiated and filed as a no claim. Thereafter the complainant attempted to have the matter reopened by the Senior officials of the Insurance Company, but to no avail and ultimately vide Annexure C-6 dated the 12th of April, 1991 the Insurance Company reiterated its earlier repudiation on the ground that the cause of accident was due to self-combustion. The present complaint was thereafter preferred before this Commission on the 29th of August, 1991.

4. In the written statement filed by the Insurance Company three preliminary objections were raised. It was averred that the insured were buying Zinc cyclone/Zinc powder/Zinc dust which they stocked in their factory for manufacturing Zinc there from. The aforesaid chemicals are prone to self-combustion and the cause of the alleged fire, according to them was self-combustion alone as reported by the independent surveyor M/s. J.K.