Mr. Y. Krishan, Member—The complainant is manufacturing and marketing Computer & Peripherals. Its manufacturing place is located in Noida. The complainant got its factory and the assets thereat insured through the opposite party-M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. with effect from 19th August, 1991 to 18th August, 1992. The insurance policy covered all risks, in particular fire and burglary, for Rs. 56.25 lakhs for the Noida unit.

2. According to the complainant, there was a burglary in its factory at night between 8th and 9th of September, 1991. He estimated the loss of goods at Rs. 16.99 lakhs. The complainant lodged an FIR on the 9th September, 1991 with the police and the claim for Rs. 16.99 lakhs with the insurance company for the loss due to burglary. The opposite party-insurance company after examination of the loss through the Surveyor including a Chartered Accountant and also by an investigation through a retired Deputy Superintendent of Police of C.B.I. repudiated the claim altogether by its letter of 3th September, 1993. The opposite party-insurance company alleged that there was concealment of material information by the appellant complainant and that the latter had furnished incorrect and wrong information and manipulated and fabricated documents. In the letter of repudiation, the opposite party-insurance company alleged that the burglars came to the factory in a car and were allowed in by a peon of the appellant complainant acting in collusion with the burglars. A perusal of the letter of repudiation by the opposite party insurance company clearly shows that it had examined the matter at length and applied its mind to the claim of the complainant. The repudiation is bonafide and after due consideration of all the relevant facts. In the circumstances, it cannot be alleged and maintained that there has been any deficiency of service by the opposite party-insurance company under the Consumer Protection Act.

3. The letter of repudiation contains allegations of the burglary having been committed in collusion with an insider and an employee of the complainant insured, concealment of material information, allegations of the appellant insured having furnished incorrect and wrong information and manipulated or fabricated documents etc. It is obvious that it is not possible for this Commission to undertake the examination of these allegations and contentions by taking evidence to determine the correctness or otherwise of these allegations.

4. In view of what has been stated above and keeping in view the fact that the opposite party insurance company has repudiated the claim after duly considering the claim of the complainant insured, the complainant has not been able to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party-insurance company under the Consumer Protection Act. It is also not feasible to examine the truth or otherwise of the allegations against the insured made by the insurance company in time bound proceedings under the Act. In the result, the complaint is dismissed on the limited grounds indicated above without prejudice to the complainant’s right to seek redress in Civil Court if it is so advised. There is no order as to costs.

Complaint dismissed.

_____