ESJAY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

THIS is an appeal filed by the original complainant. His complaint has been dismissed as not maintainable by the District Forum, Bhopal.

THE complainant is a manufacturer of readymade garments. Complainant''s factory is situated at 38-C, Mandideep Industrial Area. It was insured with the respondent No. 1, New India Assurance Company Limited against burglary for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. During the night intervening 1st and 2nd January, 1991 burglary took place in the factory and the complainant preferred a claim for Rs. 52,673/- towards costs of goods stolen and Rs. 2,000/- towards damage to factory gate. The respondent''s surveyor assessed loss of Rs. 34,791/- only and this amount was accordingly offered to the complainant. The complainant received the money and given a receipt acknowledging full and final satisfaction of the claim. A deed of subrogation was also executed by the complainant assigning all his claims in respect of stolen property in favour of the Insurance Company.

However, the complainant filed the complaint before the Forum alleging that he had accepted the claim of Rs. 34,791/- under coersion and durace and is not bound by it and is not estopped from claiming the residuary amount of his original claim. The Forum has taken a view that in the proceedings of a summary nature like the proceedings before the Forum under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the questions raised in the complaint could not be agitated. The Forum therefore, held the complaint to be not maintainable and dismissed. Against this order of present appeal is directed.

HAVING heard the learned Counsel from both the sides and having perused the record we are of the opinion that the appeal has no force and must fail. It may be true that the appellant was forced by the circumstances to acknowledge full and final satisfaction of his claim by accepting Rs. 34,791/- only as otherwise he would not have received the amount. It the lesser amount and acknowledged full and final satisfaction of its claim, the Insurance Company would have been free to contest the entire claim. Thus, both the things are possible, either the appellant has accepted the claim because he was in dire need of money and was under dog in the transaction or he has thought it advisable to deliberately and without any compulsion accept the payment, and had given a receipt of full and final satisfaction in order to get over the essential difficulty of the liability being disputed by the Insurance Company. To decide where lies the truth between the aforesaid two possibilities an elaborate evidence would be necessary and this cannot be properly done in the summary enquiry under the Act before the Forum. Same is the position on merits of the claim. Heads under which the amount of compensation is claimed enumerated in the order under appeal show that on each count elaborate evidence will have to be recorded before a finding could be given. The first head of additional claim is compensation for loss of production, business, the capital and labour remaining idle and for discontinuance of withdrawals of cash credit amounts from S.B.I, as also on account of unnecessary interests paid to the Bank. The second head is compensation for loss occasioned by unilateral and unreasonable deductions made from the claim preferred by the complaint. To prove this also elaborate evidence is necessary.

IT is settled position that whenever intricate questions depending on voluminous evidence a rises, a Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not an appropriate Forum. If, authorities are needed for the proposition they are cited by the District Forum in the order under appeal. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum, Bhopal. The appeal is dismissed. There shall however, be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.