GUJARAT LEASE FINANCING LIMITED vs ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD

-THIS appeal is by complainant-Gujrat Lease Financing Ltd. whose complaint against respondent-the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. dismissed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Indore vide order dated 16. 11. 2006 in C. C. No. 302/2003.

APPELLANT-COMPLAINANT is a Finance Company which had granted loan to respondent No. 1 - Kunal Pandit for purchase of a car Maruti Zen. The car was insured with the respondent-Insurance Company for the period from 29. 9. 1998 to 28. 9. 1999. The car was hypothecated with the appellant-company. Respondent No. 2 had on 10. 2. 1999 submitted a claim with respondent-Insurance Company for payment of sum assured and it was stated that the subject insured has been stolen from T. T. Nagar, Bhopal on 8. 2. 1999. It appears that respondent No. 2 has lodged report with the Police Station T. T. Nagar, Bhopal the same day. However, the police has given FR on 16. 6. 1999 stating that the theft could not be traced nor the vehicle recovered. The respondent-Insurance Company got the matter investigated by two investigators namely N. K. Awasthi and R. C. Choubey, who both vide their report dated June 16, 2000 and December 10, 2001 expressed the opinion that the claim was doubtful as according to them no theft had, in fact, taken place. Relying on these reports, the respondent-Insurance Company vide its letter dated 8. 1. 2001 repudiated the claim. It appears that the matter was then taken up by the appellant-Finance Company with the respondent-insurer who thereupon got the matter reinvestigated by Mr. R. C. Choubey who again vide his report dated June 17, 2002 reiterated his opinion that no theft as such has taken place and that the claim is not genuine. At the outset it may be observed that no complaint claiming sum assured was filed by Kunal Pandit, the owner insured of the vehicle. The complaint before the District Forum was filed by the financr-appellant who assailed the said repudiation and claimed payment of sum assured as the owner insured has failed to repay the loan.

Initially respondent No. 2 was not made party to the case and the complaint of appellant was allowed by the District Forum vide its order dated 24. 3. 2005. However, on appeal by the respondent No. 1-Insurance Company this Commission set aside the said order and remanded the case back to the District Forum for decision afresh after impleading owner insured as party to the case. However, respondent No. 2 remained absent despite service of notice. This time the Forum below dismissed the complaint of appellant upholding the repudiation and this is how the case is again before this Commission in appeal. Respondent No. 2 again did not put in appearance before this Commission and was, therefore, proceeded against ex parte.

WE have heard Mr. R. S. Chhabra, learned Counsel for appellant and Mr. Ravindra Tiwari, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 - Insurance Company. As already stated the repudiation of the claim is made on the basis of reports submitted by the said two investigators. In fact, repeated investigations have been made in the case. The owner insured i. e. respondent No. 2 did not co-operate in any of these investigations and his conduct throughout has been very suspicious. Investigator Mr. R. C. Choubey has filed detailed affidavit in support of his report. It is really surprising that respondent No. 2 did not think it even necessary to approach any Court or the Forum and in a way accepted the repudiation of his claim by the insurer-company. It is true that a financier being beneficiary is competent to file and prosecute a complaint under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. However, before any claim can be allowed the same has to be established by the appellant-complainant. However, no evidence beyond filing copy of the police report and the FR could be adduced by the appellant. The doubts raised by the said two investigators still persist rather reinforced by the absence of respondent No. 2.

IT has come in evidence that respondent No. 2 had purchased another similar car in the year 1999 which was got insured by another Insurance Company i. e. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Interestingly the second car was also allegedly stolen and the claim for the sum assured preferred by respondent No. 2 with the said Insurance Company has also been repudiated by the latter. It could not be a mere co-incidence that the two cars purchased by Respondent No. 2 were stolen in the very year of their purchase and insurance. The suspicion expressed by the two investigators cannot be, thus, held to be wholly unfounded. Needless to say that Insurance Company cannot be made to pay any such claim unless the loss of the subject insured is established fully. In the instant case as already stated owner insured-respondent No. 2 utterly failed in establishing his claim. He did not co-operate with the investigators and also did not appear before the Ombudsman to whom the matter was referred by the Insurance Company. He also did not co-operate with the appellant-complainant and chose to remain ex parte before the Forum as also before this Commission. The National Commission in case of Shri Ganesh Spinners v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , III (1996) CPJ 183 (NC), has held that when Insurance Company has taken its decision on the claim after due application of its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and the said decision cannot be said to have been taken otherwise that in good faith, it is not possible to hold that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the insurer in determining the claim. In the case in hand also it is seen that respondent No. 1 Insurance Company has repudiated the claim of respondent No. 2 after proper investigation and due application of mind. No deficiency in service can, therefore, be attributed to it and the complaint of appellant in our considered view has been rightly dismissed by the Forum below. We may however, clarify that in case the appellant-Company is not satisfied with the said repudiation and the decisions passed under the Consumer Protection Act, it may take recourse to such other remedy as may be available to it in law.

IN the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.