Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Wadhwa, President;
Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao & Mr. B.K. Taimni, Members
A.V. COTTEX LTD.—Complainant
versus
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.—Opposite Party
Original Petition No. 63 of 2000—Decided on 16.1.2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant :Mr. Anurag Aggarwal, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party : Nemo.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 21- Compensation Claim totaling Rs. 1 crore under Insurance Policy-Opposite partys contention that amount of Rs. 4,35,246 had been paid and in terms of contract if any difference arose on quantum it was to be referred to arbitration-Though commission would have the jurisdiction dispite arbitration clause in the policy but complainant to prove his claim will have to lead evidence both oral and documentary-It would require cross-examination of both parties-Complaint could not be decided in summary jurisdiction within specified time of 90 days-Complainant to seek remedy before Civil Court or other forum.
Claim pertains to insurance claim which has been repudiated by the opposite party insurance company. It is the contention of the opposite party. Insurance Co. that a sum of Rs. 4,35,246 has already been paid to the complainant in complete settlement of its insurance claim. It is submitted that it is a term of the insurance policy that if any difference arose on the quantum to be paid, such difference shall be referred to arbitration and the matter stand concluded as per the decision of the arbitrator. Relevant arbitration clause has also been set out. This allegation as such has not been denied by the complainant except to contend that as per judgment of the Supreme Court in Fair Air Engineers Pvt Ltd v N.K. Modi, III (1996) CPJ 1 (SC), this commission will have jurisdiction and is it is not necessary to relegate the parties to arbitration. To this contention of the complainant there cannot be two opinions. However, the fact remains that the complainant will have to prove the loss and for that it will have to lead evidence both oral and documentary to give the market value of the properties lost as there are number of machinery items. Numerous documents are already on record. It would be difficult to decide such a matter on the basis of the affidavits. It would require cross examination of both the parties. Such type of complaint cannot be decided in our summary jurisdiction where commission is expected to decide a matter within 90 days.
Mr. Justice D.P. Wadhwa, President—In this complaint, complainant has claimed compensation of a sum of Rs. 41,11,000/- and various other amounts totalling about Rs. 1.00 crore. Claim pertains to insurance claim which has been repudiated by the opposite party-Insurance Company. It is the contention of the opposite-party Insurance Company that a sum of Rs. 4,35,246/- has already been paid to the complainant in complete settlement of its insurance claim. It is submitted that it is a term of the insurance policy that if any difference arose on the quantum to be paid, such difference shall be referred to arbitration and the matter stand concluded as per the decision of the Arbitrator. Relevant arbitration clause has also been set out. This allegation as such has not been denied by the complainant except to contend that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. N.K. Modi, III (1996) CPJ 1 (SC), this Commission will have jurisdiction and it is not necessary to relegate the parties to arbitration. To this contention of the complainant there cannot be two opinions. However, the fact remains that the complainant will have to prove the loss and for that it will have to lead evidence, both oral and documentary to give the market value of the properties lost as there are number of machinery items. Numerous documents are already on record. It would be difficult to decide such a matter on the basis of the affidavits. It would require cross-examination of both the parties. Such type of complaint cannot be decided in our summary jurisdiction where Commission is expected to decide a matter within 90 days.
2. Accordingly, we will not entertain this complaint and would require the complainant to seek its remedy, if any, before Civil Court or any other Forum as may be permitted under the law. This complaint is therefore returned.
Ordered accordingly.
