AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
IT is the Insurance Company which has come up in this Revision against the order of the State Commission which in turn had affirmed the order of the District Forum holding that there was deficiency in service by the Insurance Company.
COMPLAINANT /respondent had taken insurance policy to cover his machinery and stocks. During the validity of the policy there was a fire which resulted in loss to the complainant. Petitioner, however, repudiated the claim on the ground that the complainant had failed to produce his account books and other relevant records to assess the loss. Complainant filed a complaint in the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company. While allowing the complaint, District Forum did not award any compensation and rather directed that complainant be given one more opportunity to produce his books of accounts and other documents so that his claim is settled by the Insurance Company. Directions regarding time limit were also given. This was by order dated 18.2.1999. However, by letter dated 1.6.1999, Insurance Company repudiated the claim and closed the file as "no claim". This led the complainant to approach District Forum again filing his application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. While the defence of the Insurance Company was that relevant records were not produced by the complainant, it was not accepted by the District Forum and even the State Commission remarked that the complainant had submitted an application in the District Forum along with documents which were forwarded to the Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company to take interest in the matter personally and to hear the complainant. State Commission observed that since the District Forum itself had sent the original documents as per order dated 8.4.1999 to Insurance Company, it could not be said that documents were not submitted by the complainant. After examining the whole aspect of the matter afresh, District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs.4 lakhs (against cloth of Rs.4.99 lakhs) to the complainant alongwith the interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of fire which was 30.3.1993 till the date of payment. Insurance company was further directed to pay Rs.11,00/- as costs. Appeal against the order of the District Forum, as noted above, was taken to the State Commission by the Insurance Company. State Commission said that the only question before it for its consideration was with regard to rate of interest. Only 2 objections were raised - (1) that the complainant had not submitted the required documents which objection was not found to be valid ; and (2) the rate of interest awarded was of the higher side. State Commission reduced the interest from 12% to 10% and otherwise maintaining the order of the District Forum.
IT was submitted by Mr. Raina, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company that substantive order could not have been passed by the District Forum in proceedings under Section 27 of the Act. He said proceedings under Section 27 of the Act were misconceived and that the only remedy for the complainant was to file afresh complaint. We are really surprised at such a submission. It is not material that the application is labeled under any particular Section. It is the substances of the matter. When the Insurance Company failed to comply with the directions of the District Forum to consider the matter afresh after submission of the record by the complainant, the only remedy in our view was to approach the District Forum by an application and now for the District Forum to decide the complaint on merit. This is what the District Forum has done. A consumer cannot be asked to file a complaint after complaint to fight the might of an Insurance Company. Strict rules of CPC are inapplicable to proceedings before a Consumer Forum and what is requirement of law is that rules of natural justice should be followed. It cannot be disputed that the order of the District Forum as affirmed by the State Commission was passed after notice to Insurance Company and observing the rules of natural justice. Yet another objection raised by Mr. Raina was that the complainant had also approached the Civil Court for the same relief but what we find is that that suit was dismissed in default. No advantage can be drawn by the petitioner of that in the circumstances of the present case. We do not find this to be a fit case to exercise our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.