ADVANCE RUBBER INDUSTRIES vs UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

THIS is an appeal against the order dated the 8th June, 1993 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh in Original Complaint No. 21 of 1992. By the impugned Order the State Commission held that the Insurance Company has on its own showing came to a bonafide conclusion that the claim of the complainant was not tenable and consequently repudiated it and once that is so, it is difficult and indeed impossible in the consumer jurisdiction to hold that there was a patent deficiency in the service which the insurer had undertaken to render. The complaint was accordingly dismissed. The complainant, M/s. Advance Rubber Industries, through its Proprietor Shri Ram Lai Gupta has filed this appeal before this Commission. The respondent is United India Insurance Company Ltd. which was the opposite party in the complaint. The parties will be referred to as they were arrayed in the complaint.

ACCORDING to the allegations in the complaint, the complainant is engaged in manufacturing of rubber Chappals etc. and for security of the business he had got insured his factory as well as the finished and raw material with the opposite party for a sum of Rs. 9,50,000/- vide fire policy which was valid of the period from 4th February, 1991 to 3rd February, 1992. On 18th August, 1991 the factory caught fire. Due to the said fire the whole stock of the raw material, finished goods and other material etc. lying in the above factory premisses were burnt to ashes and the machinery was badly damaged. The complainant immediately gave intimation to the opposite party on 20th August, 1991 regarding the above said fire incident. However, inspite of the repeated reminders and requests the complainant did not care to take any step in the matter and even did not care to depute any Surveyor to assess the loss incurred by the complainant. Under such circumstances, the complainant got the loss assessed from Shri Rajesh war Nath, an approved Surveyor and Loss Assessor of M/s. Leo Alex who vide his detailed report dated 7th October, 1991 assessed the loss of the complainant to the tune of Rs. 3,70,860/-. The complainant sent the copy of the said report to the opposite party alongwith a request to settle the claim. But the opposite party has not settled the claim of the complainant till the filing of the complaint despite repeated requests. In the complaint, the complainant prayed for the grant of Rs. 3,70,000/- on account of loss suffered by him plus interest at the rate of 24% p.a. on the said amount from the date of the loss till payment. He also claimed Rs. 1 lac for the loss in business suffered by him on account of the lapses on the part of the opposite party in not settling his claim. He also claimed Rs. 5,694/- paid by him to the Loss Assessor plus Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental tension and harassment. According to the complainant he suffered all these on account of deficiency in service of the opposite party. The complaint was contested by the opposite party. Their case is that the claim of the complainant has already been repudiated after a thorough investigation and consideration and thus, there is no deficiency in service and the complaint must be dismissed. It is stated that there is ample circumstantial evidence that shows that the complainant had himself set his factory on fire and he had foisted a false claim against the Insurance Company. According to the opposite party� Insurance Company� the complainant had lodged the First Information Report on the day of occurrence and he had stated therein that the fire was caused by the family members of the landlord by pouring kerosene oil over the rubber materials of the complainant and set them on fire whereas in the anticipatory bail moved by the family members of the landlord they had stated that the complainant himself set his factory on fire and had lodged a false First Information Report against them.

ON merits, the opposite party has stoutly controverter the allegations of the complainant. It was highlighted that immediately after receiving the intimation of loss from the complainant, Shri Yogindra Kumar Sood, Surveyor was appointed to assess the loss and on 20th August, 1991, the Surveyor and the Branch Manager of the opposite party visited the premises of the complainant factory. The complainant was not available and his wife was reluctant to allow the Surveyor to survey the premises. The Surveyor thereafter wrote a letter dated the 9th September, 1991 to the complainant but the complainant somehow managed not to receive the said letter although it was sent to him on his correct address and this act of the complainant amply proved his bad intention to avoid the scrutiny of his alleged loss. It was further averred that the opposite party appointed two Surveyors, namely, S/Shri Yogindra Kumar Sood and K.C. Gupta who had unanimously reported that the complainant had put the premises on fire and then lodged the FIR against the landlord of the premises involving his lady members to pressurise them to compromise the matter in which he ultimately succeeded by getting huge amount from him for vacating the premises.

THE State Commission has held that the complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands. For arriving upon this conclusion reliance was placed upon the fact that the complainant had deliberately suppressed the fact that he had lodged an FIR immediately after the incident in which it has been mentioned that the family member of the landlord had poured kerosene oil over the rubber material of the complainant lying in the factory and set it on fire. According to the State Commission it was a deliberate suppression of material fact. It maybe mentioned here that the State Commission had also remarked that the complainant had withheld this material information from the opposite party also. The Commission further remarked that the complainant had chosen not to appear as a witness in the case, though he was the best witness to depose directly with regard to the allegations made by him and therefore, it is not possible to arrive at a categorical finding of fact that the factory got fire accidentally. The State Commission also relied upon the reports of the Surveyors S/Shri Yogindra Kumar Sood and K.C. Gupta and Mr. Swaran Singh, an Investigator appointed to investigate the matter. The Surveyors have arrived at the following conclusions: "Our independent inquiries in the neighbourhood of the insured revealed that the rubber factory was not working since long and the insured had taken a loan from the Bank. In order to settle the Bank account which was running irregular, the insured thought of claiming the amount from the Insurance Company on the pretext of fire. The intentions of the insured are mala fide which can be established from 1. The insured has neither maintained nor produced before us any document or books of account. Even the photographs were not allowed to be taken of the affected premises. 2. The insured approached S. Jaswinder Singh, Inspector of the United India Insurance Co. to enquire the procedure of claim in case of fire about 4-5 days prior to the incident. 3. Our Assistant S. Gopal Singh, Chartered Accountant is the neighbourer of the insured and the insured approached us directly to assess the loss. He was informed that he should proceed to the Insurance Company and it is the Insurance Company who appoints the Surveyor. 4. The insured even offered as a share in the claim proceeds which we refused and asked him to comply with the requirements. Keeping in view the above mentioned facts, we are of the opinion that the intentions of the insured are mala fide and we suspect a foul play on his part. It is not even the case of an accidental fire and it appears that to square up the Bank liability and under the circumstances mentioned above in this report the insured has deliberately put his premises on fire. In view of the same, we hereby give our opinion that it is the case of ''No Claim'' and nothing is payable to the insured by the insurers".

» In view of the above reports the State Commission did not deem it necessary to labour the point further as adequate material established on record raised a serious doubt about the complainant''s claim. Hence, the State Commission dismissed the complaint holding that the repudiation of the claim was bonafide and there was nothing for holding that there was deficiency in service. Feeling aggrieved the complainant has come before this Commission by way of this appeal. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case.

THE main argument advanced on behalf of the complainant is that no Surveyor or Investigator had visited the spot and the State Commission has failed to notice that the Surveyors or Investigator did not attach the statements of the persons interrogated by them with their reports and even their names were not disclosed. The appellant has also challenged the conclusion of the Surveyors that the factory was not running for the last one year prior to the fire accident as he had submitted before the Commission documents from the Electricity Department to show that the factory was in working condition at the time of fire accident and there was consumption of electrical energy.

IN the present case it is very difficult to hold that the Surveyors or Investigator did not visit the factory premises to assess the loss and investigate the cause of fire. It may be mentioned here that in the memorandum of appeal the complainant has admitted that the fire took place in the factory as a result of malicious act of Shri Surinder Jain and his other family associates whose names find mention in the FIR. It is not understood why the complainant did not disclose this fact in the complaint.

WE have carefully considered the pleadings of the parties and the order of the State Commission and we have come to the conclusion that in the present case there is no ground to hold that the Insurance Company has been guilty of negligence or there is deficiency in service. The Insurance Company appointed the Surveyors and Investigator who filed the reports. After going through the report the Insurance Company applied its mind and repudiated the claim. The repudiation in the present circumstances does not appear to be arbitrary.

HENCE , we uphold the Order of the State Commission dismissing the complaint. However, we make it clear that the complainant will be at liberty to seek his remedy in a Civil Court, if so advised. We make no order as to costs.