Deccan Enterprises Pvt Ltd vs NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

THIS complaint pertains to insurance claim arising out of heavy downpour of rain. Prayer is for award of compensation of Rs. 1,55,06,732/ -. This amount comprises as under : Rs. ''(a) Towards claim under the Insurance Policy (Para -5) 78,87,061/ - (b) Towards interest @ 18% p.a. on sum of - (para -18) Rs. 78,87,061/ - for the 12 months from 1.3.2001 to 28.2.2002 14,19,671/ - (c) Towards loss of profit due to non -settlement - (Para -18) of the claim from 1.3.2001 to 28.2.2002 @ Rs. 5 lacs per month 60,00,000/ - (d) Cost incurred in making the claim -(Para -18) 2,00,000/ - 1,55,06,732/ -

THE claim had been repudiated by the opposite party -Insurance Company on the ground that it is fraudulent. This is com -municated by letter dated 21.11.2001 of the Insurance Company which we quote : ''With reference to the above, you are quite clear that our Regional Office has appointed one of our panel Surveyor, and the concerned Surveryor after physical inspection of the Spot in your presence and collected the documents submitted by you, has submitted his report alongwith the enclosures to us. However, it has been observed, established and opined by our Surveryors, Investigators and Counsulting Pro -fessionals that your acts and the records submitted in support of your claim especially with regard to the suply of raw material from M/s. Deccan Industrial Products (P) Ltd., the bills of repair of machinery, the maintenance of inward register of incoming material and regarding the relationship between M/s. Deccan Industrial Products (P) Ltd., your supplier of raw material and your organisation besides various other activities were attracting the provisions of Condition No. 8 of the policy issued to you, forfeiting the benefits under the above policy. We have agreed with the above opinion after due consideration. Hence, we regret our inability to settle the above claim. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/ - (GOPAL REDDY) Divisional Manager''

In such a situation a great deal of evidence both oral and documentary will have to be led by the complainant to prove its case. Complainant has already filed paper books containing documents running into 625 pages. Question of interpretation of clauses of the policy will also arise. It is not possible for the National Commission in its summary jurisdiction to decide such case. We may in this case refer to a decision of three -Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Synco Industries v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Ors., I (2002) CPJ 16 (SC)=I =2002 (1) SCALE, in which Supreme Court observed where complicated questions of law and facts are involved Forum under the Consumer Protection Act may not be a proper Forum to dispose of such a case in summary fashion. It was also observed that a Civil Court would be right place to decide the issue involved in that case and it went further to add that the complainant did not file the complaint before the Civil Court to start with because, before the Consumer Forum, any figure in damages can be claimed without having to pay Court -fees and that this, in that sense, was an abuse of the process of the Consumer Forum. It will, therefore, be appropriate for a complaint like this to be tried in a Civil Court after payment of appropriate Court -fee. Accordingly, this complaint is dismissed. This order will, however, not prejudice to the complainant if it chooses to approach any other Forum or Court for redressal of its grievances. Complaint dismissed.