ADVANCE RUBBER INDUSTRIES vs UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD

M/s. Advance Rubber Industries, Jalandhar City through its Proprietor Shri Ram Lal Gupta has filed this complaint under Section 12 read with Section 17(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ''Act'') aainst the opposite-party - The United India Insurance Company Ltd., Jalandhar, claiming Rs. 5,26,554/ - as compensation alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of the incident till payment as detailed in para No.4 of the complaint. 2.The complainant, Shri Ram Lal Gupta, Proprietor of M/s. Advance Rubber Industries, Jalandhar City has pleaded in the complaint that he was engaged in manufacturing of Rubber Chappals etc. and for the security of the business he had got insured his factory as well as the finished and raw material with the respondent-United India Insurance Company Ltd. (for short, ''the Insurance Company'') for a sum of Rs. 9,50,000/-. The Insurance Policy was valid upto 3.2.1992. According to the complainant, the stock of Rubber Chappals and the raw material stored in the factory caught fire on 19.8.1991 and the same was completely destroyed. The complainant intimated about the loss to the Insurance Company on the following day and when no action was taken by it, he got the loss assessed from Shri Rajeshwar Nath, an approved Surveyor and the loss assessor of M/s. Leo Alex, who vide his detailed report dated 7.10.1991 assessed the loss of the complainant to the tune of Rs.3,70,880/-. The complainant sent a copy of the said report to the Insurance Company alongwith a request to settle his claim but nothing was done. Having failed to receive any relief on making representations, the present complaint was preferred before this Commission on May 1, 1992. 3.On notice being issued, the Insurance Company has filed its version and has raised a preliminary objection that the claim of the complainant has already been repudiated after thorough investigation and consideration and there being no deficiency in service, the complaint is liable to 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. It is further stated in the written statement that the complainant had also 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 lodged a false F.I.R. against them. On merits, the allegations of the complainant were stoutly controverted by the respondent and what was highlighted is the fact that immediately on receipt of intimation of loss from the complainant, Shri Yogindra Kumar Sood, Surveyor was appointed to assess the loss and on 20.8.91, the Surveyor and the Branch Manager of the answering respondent visited the premises. The complainant was not available and his wife was reluctant to allow the surveyor to survey the premises. It was averred that the surveyor thereafter wrote a letter dated 9.9.1991 to the complainant to call him for scrutinising his claim but the latter somehow managed not to receive the said letter although it was sent to him on he correct address and this act of the complainant ampy proved his bad intention to avoid the scrutiny of his alleged loss. It was further pleaded that the respondent appointed two Surveyors namely S/Shri Yogindra Kumar Sood and K.C. Gupta, who had unanimously reported that the complainant had himself 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 the huge amount from him for vacating the premises. 4.In support of his claim, the complainant rested himself content by filing documents Annexures A-1 to Annexure A-16. The learned Counsel for the complainant had stated before us that these documents may be treated as evidence to be adduced on behalf of the complainant. The Insurance Company put on record the documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-12. On the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, their evidence was closed by the order of the Commission. 5. At the very outset, we must necessarily notice the pointed and vehement stand of Mr. D.P. Gupta, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company that the complainant by his suspicious conduct, has rendered himself ineligible for relief within the consumer jurisdiction. It is his case that there was a deliberate attempt on the part of the complainant to suppress the material fact in the claim filed by him before the Insurance Company and also before this Commission. In particular, it was pointed out that during the investigation, it was found by the Insurance Company that in the F.I.R. (Ex.R-2) lodged by the complainant it has been specifically mentioned that the family members of the landlord had poured kerosene oil on the rubber material of the complainant and set it on fire whereas in the application for anticipatory bail (Ex.R.3) moved by the family members of the landlord, it is stated that the complainant himself set the factory on fire and lodged a false F.I.R. against them. These material facts are conspicuous by their absence in the complaint Gled by the complainant. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that there is a considerable merit in the aforesaid stance of the learned Counsel for the respondent. Rule of our jurisprudence has long been that those seeking relief in equitable or extra-ordinary jurisdiction (other than ordinary and the formal one at law) must do so with the utmost candour and without any covert or overt suppression of facts or making of any misleading averments. That principle is epitomised in a dictum that the petitioner even on writ side must come into portals of such jurisdictions with clean hands. Though this aspect is patent on principle yet the authority on the point is not lacking either; in Asiatic Engineering Co. v. Achhru Ram, A.I.R. 1951 All. 746 Chief Justice Malik speaking for the Full Bench was observed as follows:- "A person obtaining an ex-parte order or a rule nisi by means of a petition for exercise of the extraordinary powers under Act. 226 of the Constitution must come with clean hands, must not suppress any relevant facts from the Court, must refrain from making misleading statements and from giving incorrect information to the Court. Courts for their own protection should insist that persons invoking these extraordinary powers should not attempt, in any manner, to misuse this valuable right by obtaining ex-parte order by suppression, misrepresentation or misstatement of facts."

In the light of the above, both on principle and precedent it has necessarily to be held that a consumer knocking at the door of the Redressal Agencies under the Act for relief in a consumer dispute must do so with clean hands. The complainant had deliberately suppressed the material fact of having stated in the F.I.R. that the family members of the landlord had poured kerosene oil and set the materials lying in the factory on fire. We have, therefore, to consider whether this suppression of the material fact by the complainant dis-entitles him to relief in this jurisdiction? The complainant had also withheld the material information from the Insurance Company and the Commission that in the application for anticipatory bail moved by the family members of the landlord it was stated that the complainant himself set the premises on fire and lodged a false F.I.R. against them. In the circumstances, the complainant has disentitled himself to relief in this jurisdiction and he must be relegated to the ordinary remedy of law, if so advised. 6. It may be highlighted that the scope of a consumer dispute in the present context is somewhat limited. The complainant in order to succeed has to establish a patent deficiency in the services of the Insurance Company, which the latter had undertaken to render. It is not for this Commission to go into the highly contested questions fact or complexity of legal rights of the parties under the Act. Viewed in the aforesaid context, the onus however, light on the complainant is to show an apparent deficiency in the service on the part of its insurer. However, it would appear that the complainant has been somewhat cavalier in discharging the onus. What first meets the eye is the fact that the complainant has chosen not to appear as a witness. Obviously, he was the best witness to depose directly with regard to the allegations made on his behalf. Therefore, in view of what has been indicated above, it is not possible to arrive at any categoric findings of fact. It is an old addage that the complainant''s case has to stand on its own legs. It would somewhat obvious in the present case that on his be half, the complainant has been unable to lay a sure foundation of establishing as a fact that his stock of rubber chappals and the raw material lying in the factory caught fire accidently. 7. Apart from the inherent weakness in the complainant''s case, the Insurance Company virtually established its stand that the complainant had himself set his factory on Are to get a false claim from the Insurance Company and to pressurise the landlord of the premises to pay him money with whom he was having litigation. Insurance Company had appointed two Surveyors namely S/Shri Yogindra Kumar Sood and K.C. Gupta to survey the loss and Mr. Sarwan Singh an Investigator to investigate the matter. No serious challenge could be laid to the detailed reports of the Surveyors and the Investigator (Annexures R-8 to R-10). Both the Surveyors had arrived at the same conclusion. It merits notice in extenso:- "Our independent inquiries in the neighborhood 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 the following facts:- (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 approach hed S jaswinder Singh Inspector of the United India Insurance Co. to enquire the procedure of claim incase 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 us 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 squre up the bank liability and underthe 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 what has been stated above, it seems unnecessary to labour the point. On adequate material established on record, a serious doubt about complainant''s claim was raised. On a consideration thereof, the Insurance Company has on its own showing came to a bonafide conclusion that the claim of the complainant was not tenable and was consequently repudiated. 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 Jiad undertaken to render. Inevitably, the complainant must fail in his attempt to seek redressal within the summary jurisdiction under the Act. 8. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.