Dalmia Resorts International P Ltd vs Ranjana Gupta

COMPLAINANT No. 2 is aconsumer organisation of which complainant No. 1 is a member. This complaint is filed for and on behalf of complainant No. 1 (complainant for short) for recovery of Rs. 9,60,000/ - which includes Rs. 8,65.000/ - claimed under the insurance policies taken by the complainant from the opponent.

THE complainant is carrying on business of hardware articles from his shop which is in Odhav area of Ahmedabad. He had taken insurance of the shop and the goods and stock lying therein under three insurance policies from the opponent. Insurance policy which is fire insurance policy "C" was for Rs. 2 lakhs and it was valid for the period from January 30,1992 to January 29,1993. Under this policy, damage or loss to the building was covered upto Rs. 50,000/ - and stock of hardware items etc. was covered to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/ -. Second policy which was shopkeeper''s policy was valid for the period from September 23,1992 to September 22,1993 and it was for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs. Third policy which covered risk upto Rs. 1,41,000/ - for loss of hardware articles etc. was valid for the period from November 4,1992 to November 3,1993. Thus the total risk covered under the three policies came to Rs. 8,41,000/ -. It is the case of the complainants that in the communal riots which took place in the city of Ahmedabad in January, 1993, his aforesaid shop was looted and set on fire. Information regarding the incident was filed by a Police Officer. The complainant, however, could not visit his shop and he did not come to know about the loss or damage suffered by him due to looting and fire because the area in which his shop was situated was under curfew. The complainant, however, informed the opponent about the incident on coming to know about it and requested it to appoint Surveyor to assess the loss. The Surveyor visited the complainant''s shop after about 20 days and made survey of loss or damage to the shop. The complainant produced documents and information regarding the loss suffered by him. He also answered the queries put by the Surveyor to his satisfaction. The Surveyor, however, wrote letter to the complainant stating to the effect that the loss could not be assessed at Rs. 9,65,000/ - as estimated by the complainant. According to the Surveyor loss was not more than Rs. 85,000/ -. A copy of the Surveyor''s report was, however, not supplied to the complainant. The opponent did not make payment of the claim and therefore the present complaint is filed for recovery of Rs. 9,60,000/ - from the opponent. The opponent has filed written statement Exh. 6 contesting the complaint. Besides raising technical objections regarding the maintainability of the complaint, it has denied the allegation that there was any deficiency of service on its part. The opponent has submitted that the complainant had failed to give co -operation to the Surveyor appointed by it and, therefore, the Surveyor could not make detailed assessment of the loss alleged to have been suffered by the complainant. It was further submitted that the opponent had appointed Rajdeep Consultants to investigate the claim made by the complainant. Rajdeep Consultants submitted its report and from the investigation made by it, it appeared that the claim made by the complainant was fabricated and bogus. In other words, according to the opponent, the claim made by the complainant was fraudulent. It was under these circumstances that it was recommended to repudiate the claim made by the complainant. It is therefore, submitted that the complainant is not entitled to claim any amount under the insurance policies or any compensation from the opponent.

IT is submitted on behalf of the complainant that the report of Rajdeep Consultants who are Insurance Investigators was subsequently created by the opponent. It is submitted that this report is not a genuine report. We do not find any substance in this contention. There is no reason for the opponent to fabricate this report which is dated March 29,1993. In the course of investigation by this firm it came to light that M/s. Jay Ambe Trading Company from whom the complainant was alleged to have purchased goods did not exist. The complainant had produced certain bills alleged to have been issued by said M/s. Jay Ambe Trading Company to prove the stock of goods he was having in his shop at the time when the incident of looting and fire took place. The firm of the above name was found at a different address and its proprietor Wadibhai stated before the Investigator that he had not sold any material or goods to the complainant and that he had issued false bills. In fact, he had not entered into any transaction with the complainant. It was in view of the report of the Investigator that the opponent came to the conclusion that the claim made by the complainant was fraudulent. It further appears from the documentary evidence on record that the complainant did not co -operate with M/s. Mehta & Mehta, Surveyors appointed by the opponent and therefore the Surveyors were not able to make assessment of the loss alleged to have been suffered by the complainant. The said Surveyors also reported to the opponent that no fire had taken place in the complainant''s shop. Thus, the claim made by the complainant was not free from suspicion. If, under these circumstances, the opponent refused to make payment of the claim to the complainant, it could not be said that they were not justified. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is difficult to hold the opponent guilty of deficiency of service. In any case, the opponent has alleged that the complainant''s clam is fraudulent and this allegation does not seem to be totally baseless. Therefore, as held by the National Commission, the claim made by the complainant cannot be adjudicated in the summary proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. On that ground also, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

IN the result, this complaint is dismissed. The complainant shall pay to the opponent Rs. 1,000/ - by way of costs. Complaint dismissed with costs.