Back
2009(4) CPR 220 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
Ashok Bhan, President and B.K.
Taimni, Member.
M/s Vishal Singh Ramdas
and Ors. –Petitioners
versus
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
and Ors. –Respondents
Revision Petition No. 2646 of 2005
Decided on 1-9-2009
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mrs. Pankaj Bala Sharma, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Where Insurance Company investigated the claim and found it bogus and fraudulent and material supported such conclusion, repudiation of claim would not constitute deficiency in service.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 12 and 17—Insurance Claim—Consignment of 541 tins of ghee covered under Marin Insurance Policy transported in truck did not reach destination and was lost during transit—Whereabouts of truck and consignment could not be traced—Claim was repudiated as bogus—State Commission upheld the plea in appeal—Revision—Circumstances to show that claim was bogus and fraudulent—Petitioner were dealing in jewellery business and not in ghee—No gate pass was proved for taking out the consignment from company—Two investigators made statement on oath that no transport Company was found in existence at given address—Petitioner had not made transport company or driver as party—Repudiation of claim could not be termed as arbitrary—Questions involved were disputed questions of fact which could require voluminous evidence—Petitioner could seek remedy in Civil Court—No reason to interfere with order. (Paras 8 to 16)
Ashok Bhan, President—M/s. Vishal Singh Ramdas-petitioner herein, who was the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Morena, Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’ for short) , being aggrieved by the Order dated 14.02.2005 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’ for short) in Appeal No.765 of 2001, has filed the present Revision Petition.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are:-
Complainant/petitioner had taken a Marine Insurance Policy No. 2145060400220 on 11.01.1993, which was valid upto 10.01.1994. Initially, the risk covered under the Policy was of Rs.5,00,000/- but the same was got enhanced to Rs.15,00,000/- w.e.f. 22.01.1993 on payment of additional premium by the petitioner. The dispute arose between the parties on account of repudiation of the claim put forth by the petitioner in respect 541 tins of ghee valued at Rs.4,90,000/- allegedly purchased by the petitioner from M/s. Indo Nippon Food Limited, Gurgaon, Haryana and dispatched to Morena through truck no. MP-07B/9953 booked through Gwalior Andhra Roadways, Delhi vide consignment receipt no.222 dated 29.01.1993. Case of the petitioner was that the consignment along with the truck was lost during transit and, despite best efforts, the whereabouts of the said truck or consignment could not be traced. Prior intimation of the purchase and dispatch of goods and intimation of its lost was given to the respondent-Insurance Company. The petitioner submitted the claim in prescribed form to the respondent which repudiated the same vide its Order dated 12.07.1995 leading to the filing of the Complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).
3. Respondent-Insurer justified the repudiation of the claim. It was averred in the Written Statement that on receipt of information of loss, respondent appointed Bhagwati Investigation Agency to investigate into the claim. The Investigation Report dated 20.09.1993 was submitted by the Investigator which revealed that consignment note no.222 dated 29.01.1993 was bogus. The matter was investigation further by the same Investigating Agency and one Surveyor , viz., R.M. Gupta, who vide his two Reports dated 12.06.1994 and 28.05.1994, respectively, confirmed that the entire story of the loss of consignment along with truck was highly suspicious and the claim lodged by the petitioner was fraudulent.
4. District Forum, after taking into consideration the pleadings as well as the evidences led before it, allowed the Complaint holding the respondent-Insurance Company deficient in its service and, accordingly, directed the respondent to indemnify the petitioner for the loss suffered by him. Respondent was directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,91,769/- to the petitioner along with interest @ 12 % per annum w.e.f. 29.01.1993 till realisation. Rs.5,000/- were awarded by way of damages and Rs.500/- as cost of litigation.
5. Aggrieved against the Order passed by the District Forum, respondent-Insurance Company flied an Appeal before the State Commission, which by the impugned order, has reversed the Order passed by the District Forum and held that the claim made by the petitioner was bogus and fraudulent. Accordingly, while allowing the Appeal of the respondent, the Complaint was ordered to be dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
6. Aggrieved against the Order passed by the State Commission, the present Revision Petition has been filed.
7. Learned Counsels for the parties have been heard at length.
8. There are tell - tale circumstances which go to show that the claim made by the petitioner is bogus and fraudulent. Petitioner did not have the licence to deal in ghee. He has also not filed the gate pass, which is generally issued by the companies when the goods are taken in or out of the gates of th
