New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Tarlok Singh

S.K. Gupta, J.—This is an appeal against order dated 10-4-2001 of the J&K State Consumers Protection Commission, Jammu (hereinafter

for short referred to as ""the State Commission""), by which the State Commission has awarded a sum of Rs. 75,000/- with 12% interest per annum

payable three months after the filing of the FIR, as there is no dispute about the assessment of the loss and the said amount was directed to be paid

to the claimant by the Insurance Company within six weeks from the date of the order.

Facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are not at variance and may be noticed. A truck bearing Registration No. MWY-6074 owned by

the Complainant was registered and plied in Maharashtra. That the truck was insured with the appellant, New India Assurance Company Limited,

for a sum of Rs. 1.50- lacs. The insurance of the truck was valid from 9-12-1988 till 8-12-1989. A theft in respect of the truck is stated to have

been committed on 18-9-1989 when it did not reach its place of destination at Yavatmal, Nagpur. A complaint in respect of the theft of the truck

was lodged by the owners with the Police Station on 18-11-1989, two months after the alleged occurrence. Neither an FIR was lodged nor the

investigation conducted in respect of the theft of the truck. A final concluding report made by the Police disclosed that neither the truck nor the

driver has been traced out. The claim, however, came to the preferred by the Complainant with the Insurance Company in respect of the loss of

the truck in theft on 26-12-1989. The Insurance Company, however, repudiated the claim of the Complainant on the ground that neither an FIR

regarding theft of truck was lodged nor the enquiry in the case was conducted. According to them, no offence of theft has been committed. The

Company further found foul play in the case and rejected the claim of the respondent. A complaint was filed by the respondent, Tarlok Singh,

before the State Consumers Protection Commission, under the Consumer Protection Act in Jammu for award of compensation by way of the

insurance claim against the respondent/appellant in respect of loss of his vehicle in theft. The State Commission allowed the complaint and awarded

Rs. 75,000/- with 12% interest payable three months after the filing of the FIR, as compensation in respect of the loss of the vehicle in theft, which

became the subject-matter of appeal in this Court.

We have heard Mr. R.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, as well as Mr. P.L. Koul, learned Advocate for the respondent, in

extenso. We have also gone through the record of the file meticulously.

It is not in dispute that the incident pertaining to loss of the truck in theft took place on 18-9-1989. The report about the incident came to be

lodged with Police Station, Yavatmal on 18-11-1989, two months after the incident. Neither the FIR was registered about the incident nor the

investigation was conducted in the case. However, the final report of the Police disclosed that neither driver nor the truck has been traced out. The

claim was raised in respect of the loss of vehicle in theft by intimating the Insurance Company by the Complainant on 26th December, 1989. This

claim was, however, rejected in June, 1991 by the appellant, Insurance Company. From the aforesaid facts, it is clearly manifest that the incident

was reported and the claim was preferred by the respondent with the Insurance on 26-12-1989.

It may be further pointed out that the appellant earlier also filed an appeal against the award passed by the State Commission on 28-1-1997,

which came to be disposed of on 17th May, 2000 and the case was remanded back to the J&K State Consumers Protection Commission, after

setting aside the judgment, for de novo hearing of the case regarding the evidence to be produced by the parties with regard to the theft of the

truck. The State Commission, however, after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, allowed the complaint and awarded compensation, in

respect of the loss of the truck in theft, to the Complainant.

Mr. R.K. Gupta, however, challenged the finding of the State Commission on variety of grounds and submitted that the respondent informed the

Police about the alleged theft after two months of the incident. Even the appellant-Company was informed for the first time and claim raised for the

loss of vehicle in theft on 26-12-1989, when the Policy had already expired on 8-12-1989. It is also stated, that there has been no sufficient and

adequate explanation given by the respondent about the delay first in lodging the report with the concerned Police Station and also lodging the

claim with the appellant-Company in respect of the loss of vehicle in theft after more than three months and when the Insurance Contract had

already expired. Even that the evidence provided by the insured with regard to the theft of the vehicle is neither sufficient nor satisfactory to inspire

confidence in the Court as to its credibility and genuineness.

On going through the record of the file, it is found that the respondent had placed a little evidence on record to sustain his claim of the alleged

theft. Further doubt is created about the assertions of the Complainant pertaining to the theft of the truck, on account of delay of two months in

lodging of complaint with the Police Station, on the basis of which even the FIR was not registered nor investigation was conducted, and also the

information with regard to the loss/ theft of the truck was made to the Insurance Company more than three months after the alleged incident and

that too after the Insurance Policy of the truck had since expired.

After the remand of the case by this Court vide order dated 17th May, 2000, in setting aside the award of the State Commission earlier, the

position did not improve as the same witness were produced as were examined earlier. That apart, it is also not understandable that the vehicle

was registered in Maharashtra, it plied in Maharashtra and incident was also stated to have taken place in Maharashtra, but the complaint had been

preferred before the State Commission in Jammu.

Undoubtedly, in case of repudiation of a claim by the Insurance Company, the State Commission has a jurisdiction to entertain the complaint

and to investigate whether repudiation was justified or not, and to grant such a relief as it deems fit if it satisfies that there was deficiency in service.

The appellant-Insurance Company has repeatedly informed the respondent, as is elicited from the record, to provide the final investigation report

and complete the necessary formalities for the settlement of the claim, but the respondent/Complainant did not co-operate and the Company is

stated to have been left with no option but to close the file as 'no claim'. It is clearly borne out from the record that the Company though was

informed after three months of the incident and that too after the expiry of the Insurance Policy about the loss/theft of the truck, yet it acted swiftly

and appointed investigator and also contacted the Commissioner of Police, Yavatmal, requesting investigation into the report of the Complainant

and make available the investigation report. Therefore, the Company had done whatever was required under the terms and conditions of the Policy

and acted with utmost promptitude for the settlement of the claim of the claimant, but on account of non-cooperation and completion of formalities,

the same could not be done. In such circumstances, we are clearly of the view that there was no imperfection or inadequacy in the quality, nature

or manner of the service, which the Insurance Company had undertaken and, thus, does not amount to deficiency in service, upon which the

Consumer Redressal Forum has power to adjudicate upon. Even the evidence to support the averments in the complaint produced by the

Complainant, was qualitatively and quantitatively insufficient and the Police report also was to the effect that the offence of theft/ loss was

undetectable by the Police, which neither registered the FIR nor conducted the investigation.

Further the material placed on record by the Insurance Company gives detailed reasons in support of the decision taken by the insurer to

repudiate and reject the claim of the Claimant/respondent and it cannot be said that the said decision was taken arbitrary, without due application

of mind and without taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances or otherwise than in good faith. Such being the position, we are

of the view that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company, so as to entitle the Claimant/respondent to seek a relief

under the Consumers Protection Act. The Complainant/respondent has also failed to formulate and articulate about the deficiency in the facts

disclosed in the complainant, sufficiently and satisfactorily.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the quality of evidence placed on record by the Complainant, we are clearly of

the view that the finding returned by the State Commission in awarding compensation for loss of the truck in theft is both legally and factually

erroneous.

In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the award dated 10-4-2001 passed by the State Commission.

In the peculiar circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.