1. Insurance claim for stolen vehicle — Repudiation on ground of forged police documents — Appeal under Consumer Protection Act. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 12 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 1682
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Daya Chaudhary, President, Simarjot Kaur, Member, Vishav Kant Garg, Member
IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Kulmeet Singh K-Malhi – Respondent
First Appeal No. 49 of 2025
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Yogesh Gupta
For the Respondents: None
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Yogesh Gupta
For the Respondents: None
Consumer Commission proceedings are summary in nature. When a case involves complex disputed questions of fact requiring extensive evidence and cross-examination to verify document authenticity, the matter must be relegated to a Civil Court.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 41 - Insurance claim for stolen vehicle - Repudiation based on forged documents - Nature of Consumer Commission proceedings - When a case involves complex and disputed questions of fact requiring extensive evidence, examination, and cross-examination to determine the genuineness of documents, the matter should be relegated to a Civil Court. (Para 20)
Facts of the case:
A complaint was filed regarding the theft of a Toyota Fortuner vehicle, insured with the opposite party. The insurance claim was repudiated on the ground that the General Diary Report (GDR) was forged and fabricated, as the date of theft mentioned in the document was subsequent to the date of the report itself. The District Commission allowed the complaint, ordering payment of the claim amount and compensation.
Findings of Court:
The court found that there were significant contradictions in the government documents, including the GDR, FIR, and Untrace Report, regarding the date of theft and the authenticity of the reporting process. Such discrepancies cannot be resolved in a summary proceeding and require a detailed trial.
Issues: Whether the vehicle had been actually stolen and whether the GDR No. 35 dated 09.05.2021 was a forged and fabricated document.
Ratio Decidendi: Proceedings before the Consumer Commission are summary in nature. In cases where complex disputed questions of fact arise which require the scrutiny of evidence through statements and cross-examination, the matter must be relegated to the Civil Court.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Act Referred
Legal Category Hierarchy
- consumer law
- crime and sentencing
- insurance law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Appellant argued forged GDR and violation of policy condition; respondent contended theft during policy period and deficiency in service. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 9 )
3. Disputed facts regarding genuineness of police documents required lengthy evidence; summary proceedings before consumer forum unsuitable. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
4. Matters involving disputed questions of fact requiring elaborate evidence should be relegated to civil court. (Para 20 )
5. Appeal allowed; impugned order set aside; complainant granted liberty to approach civil court or appropriate authority. (Para 21 )
6. Can a consumer forum adjudicate claims involving serious disputes of fact regarding genuineness of documents?
No, consumer proceedings are summary in nature and cannot adjudicate matters requiring lengthy evidence, examination, and cross-examination. (Para 20 )
7. What is the appropriate remedy when a police GDR is alleged to be forged and fabricated in an insurance claim?
The matter should be relegated to a civil court where elaborate evidence can be tendered and scrutinized through statements and cross-examination. (Para 20 , 21 )
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tarn Taran in C.C. No. 72 of 2022.
Quorum:-
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member
Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Yogesh Gupta, Advocate
For the respondent : None
VISHAV KANT GARG, MEMBER :
Appellant/Opposite Party i.e. IFFCO Tokio Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., has filed the present Appeal through its Authorised Signatory to challenge the impugned order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tarn Taran (in short, "the District Commission"), whereby the Complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant-Kulmeet Singh K-Malhi had been allowed.
2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as were arrayed before the District Commission.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Respondent/Complainant in the Complaint filed before the District Commission are that the Complainant's Toyota Fortuner Car, bearing Registration No. GJ-10BR-0082, insured with the OP vide Policy No. P400/ME172421, w.e.f. 01.06.2020 to 31.05.2021, was stolen from Tarn Taran on 09.05.2021. In this regard, Malkit Singh the son of Lakha Singh lodged a Complaint/Rapat No.35 dated 09.05.2021 with P.S. Sadar, Tarn Taran. Thereafter, FIR No. 59/2021 under Section 379 of IPC was registered with the same Police Station. Vehicle was not traced, so Untraced Report dated 18.10.2021 was filed.
4. The theft claim was lodged with the OP and all the relevant documents were also supplied. The OP had repudiated the claim of the Complainant by stating that the Complainant had supplied the forged and fabricated documents of GDR, which had not been registered with the Police. The OP vide letter dated 30.11.2021 informed the Complainant that his claim has been closed as ‘No Claim’.
5. Stating the act of the Opposite Party to be a case of ‘deficiency in service’ and ‘unfair trade practice’, it was prayed in the Complaint that the OP be directed to release the insurance claim of Rs.15,50,000/- and to pay Rs.2 lakh as compensation for causing mental tension & harassment and Rs.1 lakh as litigation expenses.
6. Upon issuance of notice in the Complaint, the Appellant/Opposite Party had filed its written statement stating therein that the Complaint was not maintainable as the Complainant had concealed certain material facts. It was pleaded that on receiving intimation, they had deputed Investigator Jatinder Dhiman to investigate the matter, who opined in his report that GDR No.035 dated 09.05.2021, linked to FIR No. 59 dated 06.05.2021 was ‘forged’ one, which was proved from the information received under RTI to the extent that ‘in the Rapat No. 35 dated 09.05.2021 there is no information of theft of vehicle GJ-10-BR-0082 Fortuner’. It was also found that no report of theft has been added in FIR bearing No. 59 dated 06.05.2021. The information regarding lodging of GDR/DDR No. 035 dated 09.05.2021 was found forged. The Complainant in his statement had himself stated the date of incident as ‘12.05.2021’ in the GDR/DDR dated 09.05.2021. The OP after thoroughly considering all these facts, which were reflected in the Investigation Report had repudiated the claim of the Complainant, being ‘NO CLAIM’. As the Complainant had approached the Commission with unclean hands, therefore, he was not entitled for any relief. It was prayed that the Complaint filed on false and frivolous contents be dismissed.
7. After considering the contents of the Complaint and the reply thereof filed by the Opposite Party as well as on hearing the oral arguments raised on behalf of both the sides, the Complaint filed by the
