The complexity of the case and the need for voluminous evidence justified relegate the parties to the civil court for redressal.

ORDER

Gurdev Singh, President - Aggrieved by the order dated 12.2.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short "District Forum") relegating the parties to approach the Civil Court/appropriate Forum for redressal of their grievances, the appellant/complainant, Raghbir Singh, has come up with the present appeal for setting aside that order.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that the complainant got insured his Tanker No. NL-02A-9267 with respondent No. 2/OP No. 2, vide insurance policy dated 28.2.2002 which was valid upto 27.2.2003. Subsequently, he got allotted to the said vehicle registration No. PB-13K-6517 from Licensing Authority, Sangrur and got the same insured with the OPs for the period 28.2.2003 to 27.2.2004 and got that insurance policy renewed for the period from 28.2.2004 to 27.2.2005 after getting no claim bonus of 45% per annum on the ground that he had not made any claim under the previous policies. This tanker met with an accident on 21.8.2004 near village Pitajuri on National Highway No. 33 and gas leaked therefrom resulting in explosion and it was burnt and totally damaged. This was got insured for Rs. 9,00,000 and accordingly he lodged a claim for that amount with the OPs vide letter dated 13.7.2006. According to the complainant, the OPs kept on lingering the matter and neither repudiated his claim nor paid the same; which amounts to deficiency of service on their part. He made a prayer for directing the OPs to pay Rs. 9,00,000 as the sum assured, Rs. 10,00,000 as compensation on account of mental tension, torture, agony and harassment suffered by him due to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and Rs. 33,000 as litigation expenses.

3. The OPs pleaded in their written reply that the claim of the complainant was repudiated as the accidental vehicle was not covered under the policy on the date of the accident. The accident took place on 21.8.2004 and endorsement regarding the change of registration of the vehicle from PB-13K-6517 to the previous registration No. NL-02A-9267 was made on 23.8.2004. The claim was also repudiated on the ground that on verification from DTO, Sangrur, it was found that the said registration No. PB-13K-6517 was of one scooter make Bajaj Chetak standing in the name of one Hardev Singh son of Puran Singh. Thus, the vehicle at the time of accident was being driven by the complainant on fake and forged documents and under fictitious registration number. The fraudulent means and devices have been used by the complainant to get that claim and he failed to supply the desired information to D.S. Chadha, who was appointed to investigate the case. Tanker No. NL-02A-9267 was never insured with them on the date of the accident. In view of all these facts, the complaint itself is not maintainable. Complicated questions of law and facts are involved which require elaborate evidence, oral as well as documentary, and only the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction can try and decide this complaint and the same cannot be decided in the District Forum in a summary manner. The Forum cannot adjudicate the matters of forgery, fraud, manipulations and misrepresentations.

4. Both the sides produced evidence before the District Forum in proof of their respective contentions. After going through that evidence and hearing learned Counsel for both the sides, the District Forum relegated the parties to the Civil Court or other appropriate Forum for the redressal of their grievances, vide aforesaid order.

5. We have heard learned Counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case.

6. It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the complainant that the District Forum committed an illegality while relegating the parties to the Civil Court. The facts as raised in the complaint could have been easily decided on the basis of the evidence produced by the par