Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 4835
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
H.P.S. Mahal, President, Vishav Kant Garg, Member
United India Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
P.P. Industries Private Limited – Respondent
First Appeal No. 99 of 2023
For the Appellants:Sh. Nitin Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sh. Ravi Inder Singh, Advocate
Consumer Commissions under the Consumer Protection Act operate under summary procedure and are not empowered to adjudicate complex questions of fact that necessitate detailed evidentiary examination and cross-examination; such matters must be relegated to Civil Courts.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 41 - Summary proceedings - Insurance claim - Jurisdiction - When a complaint involves complex questions of fact requiring detailed examination, evidence, and cross-examination, it cannot be decided in a summary manner under the Consumer Protection Act and should be relegated to a Civil Court. (Para 18)
Facts of the case:
The complainant firm had purchased a marine cargo insurance policy for 30 transformers dispatched to a destination. Upon arrival, 16 transformers were found defective, allegedly due to oil pilferage and water contamination during transit. The insurance company repudiated the claim citing late intimation and expiration of risk upon delivery. The District Commission allowed the complaint, leading to this appeal.
Findings of Court:
The Appellate Commission found inconsistencies in the survey report, specifically regarding the discrepancy in consignment serial numbers and the lack of investigation into the integrity of seals and packaging. The court observed that the claimant failed to produce evidence of formal notices to the carrier and that police authorities denied receiving complaints. Given the conflicting evidence and the need for rigorous factual verification, the case fell outside the scope of summary jurisdiction.
Issues: Whether the insurance claim was maintainable under summary proceedings given the disputed facts and inconsistencies in the documentation provided by the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: If a consumer complaint involves disputed questions of fact that require extensive evidence and cross-examination to resolve, the Consumer Commission is not the appropriate forum, as its proceedings are intended to be summary in nature; such matters are better suited for resolution in Civil Courts.
Result: Appeal allowed; impugned order set aside with liberty to the complainant to approach the appropriate legal authority.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of facts involving insurance claim for damaged transformers during transit. (Para 1) |
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 appellants : Sh. Nitin Gupta, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh. Ravi Inder Singh, Advocate
VISHAV KANT GARG, MEMBER :
Appellants/Opposite Parties-UIIC Ltd. have filed the present Appeal challenging the impugned order dated 14.09.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bathinda (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainant had been partly allowed.
It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as were arrayed before the District Commission.
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-Firm had sold 30 transformers to EEL/Central Store, Putki Dhanbad, JBVNL Ranchi Jharkhand, which were sent through Carrier M/s G.S. Trailer Services, Ludhiana vide GR No. 233 dated 15.09.2012 to Jharkhand. The Complainant had insured the said articles by purchasing Marine Cargo Open Insurance Policy No. 200401/14/02/00000038 on paying premium of Rs.38,203/-. Said policy was valid for the period 23.08.2014 to 22.08.2015 but the terms and conditions of the same were not supplied. Before sending the Transformers to their destination, pre-inspection/testing of the same was done on 04.09.2014. Before starting the journey of the transformers on 15.09.2014, the Complainant had shown the transformers to the Driver of the vehicle and took the confirmation that the same were in good conditions i.e. without any leakage of oil from the same. Said consignment had reached to the destination on 25.09.2014.
Allegations of the Complainant were that during transit, loss in the form of Oil had occurred to 16 Transformers, which fact had been detected through Joint Inspection done by Authorities of the Consignee on 25.09.2014. Said consignee informed this fact to the Complainant, who informed about the loss to the Police Station, Bathinda vide letter dated 28.09.2014. The Complainant had also tried to lodge the DDR/FIR at Dhanbad but Police Officials refused to do so as the place of loss was not ascertain when the loss occurred during transit. Intimation regarding loss to transformers was informed to the OPs. OPs had appointed Mr. R.N.S. Kushwaha, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, who conducted the survey on 08.10.2014 and 09.10.2014. Said Surveyor vide his report dated 28.08.2015 had assessed the loss of Rs. 9,37,264/- but submitted his report on 21.09.2015. The Complainant had submitted all the documents to M/s G.S. Associates deputed by the OPs to complete the formalities for release of payment, however, instead of making the payment, the OPs vide their letter dated 28.03.2016 repudiated the claim on flimsy grounds. The OPs vide said letter had alleged that there was delay of three days in reporting the matter and that risk under marine policy terminates on unloading and handing over the goods. It was averred that since the loss was detected only on inspection/testing of the consignment, then there was no question of any intimation to the OPs at the time of taking the delivery.
Stating the act of the Opposite Parties to be a case of ‘deficiency in service’ and ‘unfair trade practice’, it was prayed in the Complaint that the OPs be directed to pay the loss of Rs.9,37,264/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of loss till realization, Rs.2,00,000/- be demanded as compensation on account of causing mental tension and harassment and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.
Upon issuance of notice in the Complaint, the Appellants/Opposite Parties filed their written statement by raising certain preliminary objections to the extent that as
