PRADEEP BLEACHING WORKS vs BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD

THIS is a complaint under Section 12 read with Section 17(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein) against the opposite parties which will for the sake of brevity will hereinafter to be referred as the "insurer". The complaint was filed on 5.2.1990. The complainant (insured) is a partnership firm. Mr. Ratan Lai is one of the partners representing his HUF. The complainant took a fire policy No. 140701/01/1/385/88, in lieu of Cover Note No. 031250 dated 1.9.1988 from the Insurer which was for the period from 8.9.1988 to 7.9.1989. The sum insured was Rs. 14,50,000/-. Fire cover Note No. 031250 was attached with the fire policy. It contained particulars of insured items as detailed in Para 3 of the complaint.

ON 29.11.1988 about 8.00 p.m. when the factory as well as the office of the complainant was closed, and the partners had returned to their residence, a telephonic message was received about 1.15 a.m. on 30.11.1988 of Shri Mohan Puri and also Shri Surender Dass, factory labour etc. that fire has broken out in the factory premises. By the efforts of the fire brigade, the fire was brought under control at about 2.30 a.m. on 30.11.1988 Shri Ratan Lal went to the Police Station, Pali at 9.00 a.m. on 30.11.1988 and intimated about the fire and Police Constable reached at the site immediately. The Police Constable on duty made necessary entries in the record. Intimation was given about the fire to the Local Insurance Agent Shri Prakash Jain, who came on the spot and inspected the premises and damage caused to the factory. Shri Sumer Singh Shekhawat, Branch Manager of the Company, Pali was informed about the fire. Local Surveyor, Shri Jugal Kishore Maheshwari also came on the spot and prepared his Survey Report and took photographs of the fire damage. The insured also deputed Shri Ajay Chand for obtaining a copy of Survey Report, who was licensed Surveyor. It is said by the complainant that the total loss was Rs. 4,01,117.15 for insured items assessed by the Surveyor but the Insurer paid only a sum of Rs. 1,57,115/- in June, 1989. Nothing was intimated to the complainant for assessing the reduced value of loss against the claim. The complainant (insured) filed the complaint praying that a balance of the amount of loss Rs. 2,44,002/- and a sum of Rs. 1,77,400J/- being loss on account of non-payment of the balance as detailed in para 24 of the complaint may be awarded to the insured by the Insurer. Thus in all an amount of Rs. 3,21,402/- was claimed. The complainant submitted the following documents with the complaint : - Subject No. of Annexure 1. Fire cover note No. JR/88 No. 031250 1 2. Fire policy No. 140701/01/1/385/88 2 3. Particulars of items attached to and forming part of policy No. 140710/01/1/385/88 3 4. Certificate dated 1.7.1989 regarding fire issued by Municipal Council, Pali 4 5. Rajasthan Police Roznamacha No. 704 5 6. Fire Survey & Assessment Report No. ACS/Survey/ 10/89 dated 15.11.1989 by Shri Ajay Chandra Singhur 6 7. Regd. letter dated 19.8.1988 addressed to all the three respondents 7 8. Authorisation letter dated 28.1.1990 in favour of Counsel Shri S.M. Mathur 8 The opposite parties (Insurer) submitted the version of the case on 21.4.1990 opposing the complainant on various grounds. Three preliminary objections were also raised regarding the maintainability of the complaint. It is not necessary to reproduce all the three preliminary objections. However the third preliminary objection was to the effect that the claim of the complainant has been paid and satisfied under the terms and conditions of .the policy of Insurance and that the complainant has in token of the acceptance of the same amount given by the Insurer a discharge letter in full and final compensation of the claim amount and as such the complaint should be dismissed. In Para 12 of the version of the case it was pleaded by the Insurer that for a sum of Rs. 21,168/- [Disbursement (claims) voucher] has also been prepared vide cheque No. 299989 dated 6.4.1990 subject to discharge of the disbursement voucher by the complainant. Disbursement voucher in triplicate in regard to Rs. 21,168/- is on record. A letter purported to be signed by Shri Ratan Lal, Partner of Pradeep Bleaching Works (Complainant) dated 9.4.1990 was submitted on behalf of the Insurer on 14.6.1990. This letter reads as under :

After the production of the letter learned Counsel for the complainant wanted to seek instructions from his client. A perusal of the order sheet dated 28.8.1990 shows that the affidavit of Shri Ratan Lal, partner of the complainant''s firm was filed in which it has been inter-alia deposed by him (Ratan Lal) that the documents (letter) on which the Insurer relies is not been signed by him, for, somebody has signed in his name. Learned Counsel for the complainant was directed to keep Ratan Lal present on the next date.

ON behalf of the Insurer affidavit of Shri S.S. Shekhawat, Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company was submitted on 15.9.1990 alongwith three original letters dated 4.7.1989, 31.5.1989 and 31.5.1989. At the request of the learned Counsel for the complainant, the Insurer was directed to produce the photostat copy of the letter dated 31.5.1990, the reference of which is in the affidavit at item 5. When the complaint was taken up today Mr. S.M. Mathur, learned Counsel for the complainant and Mr. Girish Pareek, learned Counsel for the Insurer (Opposite Parties ) submitted that the complaint may be disposed of after hearing them. At the request, we heard both the learned Counsel. It was pressed for our consideration by the learned Counsel for the Insurer that the complaint filed by the complainant should be dismissed amongst others on the following grounds : - (1) that as per the letter dated 9.4.1990 the claim amount determined was Rs. 1,78,282.81 and Shri Ratan Lal, partner of Pradeep Bleaching Works (Complainant) was completely satisfied with that determination. In that letter it was also written by him that in future he will not raise any objection and so when the claim amount has been settled and agreed to by both the parties it is not open to the complainant to go behind it and pursue the complaint,

(2)that in view of the facts stated in para 16 regarding forgery and manipulations made in the document and the circumstances under which the complainant signed the letter dated 19.8.1989 are the matters not governed by the Act as it cannot be said to a case of deficiency in service by the Insurer but a case of fraud, forgery and manipulations, and

(3)that the questions that are involved in the complaint in view of the denial of the signatures of the letter dated 9.4.1990 and the other letters which have been produced on record by the Insurer (Opposite Parties) and the affidavit, an elaborate enquiry is necessitated, for, complicated and complex questions are involved which can only be decided by taking documentary evidence.

It is pertinent to quote Paras 3,4,5,6,7,10,11,13 and 16 of the affidavit in extenso. 3. That Surveyor deputed by the United India Insurance Co., Shri V.K. Verma came to the factory of undersigned at Pali on 30.11.1988, at about 4.30 p.m. i.e. after the out break of fire at about 1.15 p.m. on 30.11.1988 and told me that if the undersigned was prepared to write a letter to the Branch Manager of the Insurance Co., which he would dictate he would arrange full compensation for the loss occurred to me in the fire to the undersigned from the Insurance Co. in this case. He then gave dictation in Hindi to the undersigned which I wrote on the printed form of my firm and as per his directions left the space of figures and words of amount of loss sustained in fire, as blank. The undersigned did not put his signatures below or at the end of this letter as per directions of Shri Verma as he told me that it could be signed after the survey report was finalised by him and the amount of compensation for loss was agreed by the undersigned.

That in the photostat copy of the document in question now I find that somebody has also filled in and written the figure of amount in the blank space as "Rs. 1,78,282.81" but who has written this and signed the document I don''t know. However in any case the undersigned has neither written these figures nor has he signed it and further that another blank space meant for writing amount in words is still blank as follows ("EK LAKH ATAHATTAR HAZAR DO SOO B AHAYSI AUR EKYASI PAISA"). This means that the amount has been written in figures by some body and the space left blank by the undersigned for writing the amount in words has not been filled or written by the person who has signed this document and written figures of amount in it.

That the undersigned always signs in his full name and Gotra viz "Ratan Lal Lasod" and not simply as "Ratan Lal" as has been signed by some body else in this document. My real hand writing and genuine signature are quite different from the hand writing of the signatures and figures done in this document by the person who has forged my signatures etc.

That the purpose of not writing the amount in the blank space by any body else who has filled in the amount in figures in this document seems to be that had the forger written the long sentence containing as many as 10 letters i.e. "ek lakh athatar hazar do so bayasi aur iqasi paise" the difference in hand written could have been easily detected and forgery caught.

THAT even in figures (Rs. 1,78,282.81) written by me forger, the difference in hand writing is clearly visible even by naked eyes as the mode of writing figures "8,7 etc." by the forger is quite different from my mode of writing these figures which exist in this same letter under caption "Vishya". This comparison shows clearly that these figures in line No. five of this letter have not been written by me, the undersigned. 10. THAT at the end of the document in question towards its left-hand side some body has written a word which is illegible and below it he has signed and put date as "9.4.1990". The undersigned does not know who has put this signature, date etc. and when because it has neither been written nor signed in my presence, more so because as the undersigned had not signed this document the question of any witness for my signatures does not arise. 11. THAT under the caption "subject" of this document it has been written that it refers to "nuksan ke sambandh main nirdharit kee gayee claim rashi sambandhi svikriti". As explained by me in Para 3, supra, of this affidavit, this document was written only the next day of outbreak of fire i.e. on 30.11.1988, therefore the question of sanction for payment of loss to the undersigned does not arise as at that time even survey had not commenced. Therefore, this document is not only erroneous but the person who has signed towards left hand side has unauthorisedly manipulated and he has also forged the document. 13. THAT the undersigned was given cheque of Rs. 1,57,115/- on 29.6.1989 by Shri Surana D.M. of the company and on the printed form of Insurance Co. its receipt was obtained by him from the undersigned and at that time the undersigned gave receipt of the cheque in the printed form of the Insurance Company in which the undersigned had struck off words full and final payments. This printed and prescribed regular receipt given by me may kindly be called from the opposite party and perused. 16. THAT the forgery and manipulation made in the document in question is further established if your honour kindly peruse (?) Annexure 7, of the complaint in which it was intimated by the undersigned to all the opposite parties as early as on 19.8.1989 through Registered A.D. letter where at page 3 it has been stated that "Whereas the forged document in question has been signed dated 9.4.1990 by the opposite party, i.e. when the undersigned had not accepted the amount of Rs. 1,57,115/-much earlier on 19.8.1989 how could the document been signed on 9.4.1990 by the undersigned and had this been signed on 9.4.1990 by me then reference of the previous denial would have occurred in this document, only if it was genuine. 7. So far as the letter about settlement and agreed amount is concerned, it has been denied on behalf of the complainant by its Partner, Ratan Lal though Shri S.S. Shekhawat, Branch Manager has asserted that the letter bears the signatures of Ratan Lal. Three letters dated 4.7.89,31.5.89 and 31.5.89 have also been produced with the affidavit of Shri Shekhawat, Branch Manager to show the veracity of the letter about settlement and agreed amount. Shri Pareek, learned Counsel for the Insurer has relied on Kilaru Jogendra Narayana Prasad v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (Original Petition No. 44 decided on 16.3.89 decided by the National Commission. It was observed therein : "We have carefully gone into the matter perused the record and heard Counsel for the complainant. There is no evidence to establish that the complainant had not given valid discharge to the Insurer or that the Insurance Company had coerced the complainant into accepting the settlement unwillingly and involuntarily. Not only the undated note written by the Complainant in his own handwriting stated that he agreed to the assessment of loss Rs. 5,88,108/- after due discussion and in full and final settlement but his letter dated 10.8.1981 to the Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company leaves no room for doubt that he had, after discussion, freely and voluntarily agreed to accept the sum of Rs. 6.50 lakhs (The amount actually paid was Rs. 5.78 lakhs. The difference is, however, not relevant for the purpose of this complaint). In fact this letter speaks of an amount of Rs. 6.50 lakhs settled and agreed to by both the parties on 5.5.89."

"Even if it is assumed that the complainant was coerced into giving his consent, then it will not be a mere case of deficiency in service by the opposite party, but also a case of fraud for which the complainant can seek redress from the appropriate Court."

We have extracted hereinabove various paras of affidavit of Shri Ratan Lal which was filed on 28.8.1990 to show that his case is that of coersion, fraud, forgery and manipulations. In these circumstances the question that arises for our determination is whether the State Commission as a Redressal Forum can hold an enquiry into all these pleas and record its finding for the purpose of granting relief to the complainant under Section 14(1) of the Act. A question arose before the National Commission in M/s Special Machines, Karnal v. Punjab National Bank & Ors. [Original Petition No. 32/89 decided on 22.12.1989 reported in I (1991) CPJ 78 (NC) whether a Consumer Forum can determine complicated and complex cases where voluminous documentary evidence is required. It was observed in para 28 as follows : "The procedure for disposal of complaints under the Act has been laid down in Section 13 of the Act, the provisions of which are made applicable to proceedings before the National Commission by Rule 14(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1987, Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 13 of the Act show beyond doubt that the statute does not contemplate the determination of complicated issues of fact involving taking of elaborate oral evidence and adducing of voluminous documentary evidence and a detailed scrutiny and assessment of such evidence. It is no doubt true that the forums constituted under the Act are vested with the power to examine witnesses on oath and to order discovery and production of documents. But such power is to be exercised in cases where the issues involved are simple such as the defective quality of any goods purchased or any shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance of a service which the respondent has contracted to perform for consideration. Even in such cases, if it appears to the concerned Forum under the Act that the issues raised cannot be determined without taking elaborate oral and documentary evidence it is open to it to decline to exercise jurisdiction and refer the party to his ordinary remedy by way of suit."

Having considered the complaint, the version of the case, the affidavit of Ratan Lal, Partner, Shri S.S. Shekhawat, Branch Manager and the documents filed by Insurer and the insured, we are opinion that the complaint involves complicated and complex questions of fact as well as of law for the determination of which oral as well as documentary evidence is necessary. The evidence so produced requires close scrutiny and is to be assessed. It is significant to note that the National Commission while considering the scope of summary enquiry of the complaints under Section 13(2) & (3) of the Act laid down that the power is to be exercised where the issues involved are simple such as the case of deficiency in service or inadequacy in quantity nature and manner of performance of service. Even in such cases a discretion has been given to the concerned Redressal Forum to decline to exercise jurisdiction where issues cannot be determined without taking elaborate oral and documentary evidence.

FOR the reasons aforesaid we decline to exercise our jurisdiction and it will be open to the complainant to pursue his remedy by way of suit. It appears from the letter produced by the Insurer-opposite parties that the claim-amount determined was Rs. 1,78,282.81 which the complainant agreed to accept as he was satisfied with it. Against that amount a sum of Rs. 1,57,115/- was paid to the complainant leaving a balance of Rs. 21,168/-. Mr. Girish Pareek, Advocate-stated that the amount of Rs. 21,168/- will be paid to the complainant within 15 days from today subject to discharge of the disbursement voucher by the complainant. The direction for Rs. 21,168/- is being given as per the request made by Shri S.M. Mathur, learned Counsel for the complainant and agreed to by Shri Pareek, learned Counsel for the Insurer.

IT is however, clarified that whatever has been said in the order will not come in the way of the complainant in any subsequent proceedings which the complainant may be advised to initiate against the Insurer and it will not adversely or prejudicially affect them. The complaint shall stand dismissed on the limited ground stated hereinabove. There will be no order as to costs of the complaint. Appeal dismissed.