PREM SINGHA vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

WE are unable to uphold the view expressed by the State Commission that the points which are required to be investigated before it in the complaint petition, out of which this appeal has arisen, were so complicated as to necessitate the parties being referred to seek an adjudication before the ordinary Civil Court. The State Commission seems to have proceeded on a gross misunderstanding of the scope of the observations made by this Commission in the case of Special Machines v. Punjab National Bank (O.P. No. 32 of 1989 dated 22.12.1989). The facts of that case were of a very special nature as clearly indicated in the judgment therein. There were allegations of fraud, misappropriation, fabrication of records and tampering with accounts and it was found necessary to conduct a close scrutiny of different accounts in two banks for long periods ranging from 10 to 12 years. It was in those circumstances that this Commission held that it was not a fit case for being dealt with by a Consumer Forum within its time bound programme for disposal of cases. In subsequent decisions of this Commission such as those rendered in S.K. Abdul Sukur v. State of Orissa in First Appeal No. 96 of 1990 dated 5.4.1991. L.I.C. of India v. Bhavanam Sreenivas Reddy (First Appeal No. 79 of 1990 dated 5.6.1991) and S. Bhagat Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (Revision Petition No. 7 of 1991 decided on 7th October, 1991) we have had occasion to clarify the scope of the observations made in Special Machines Ltd. case. WE have pointed out that the observations made by this Commission in the Special Machines and in the subsequent case of janta Machine Tools Ltd. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (O.P. No. 12 of 1990 dated 21.6.1990) have to be understood against the background of the special facts which were present in those the cases and that it was nowhere laid down in these cases that whenever the examination and cross-examination of witnesses is involved the proper forum for adjudication of the disputes is only the Civil Court. In S.K. Abdul Sukur v. State of Orissa after pointing out that the redressal forums constituted under the Consumer Protection Act have been specifically vested with power to examine witnesses on oath etc, this Commission has observed thus: "If jurisdiction is declined by the Redressal Forums set up under the Act in all such cases on the mere ground that examination and cross-examination of witnesses would be necessary, it would amount to unjust denial of the benefits of the Act to the aggrieved consumer by erronoeous abdication of its jurisdiction by the Forums."

In the case now before us the facts are not of complicated nature. The complaint relates to the alleged failure on the part of the Insurance Company to satisfy claim made against it under a policy of not or accident insurance. A bus belonging to the complainant met with an accident and the points arising for adjudication in the case are whether, as alleged by the Insurance Company, there are any factors amounting to violation of the terms of the policy by the complainant so as to disentitle him from claiming compensation from the insurance. The allegations made by the Insurance Company are only there fold : (1) That the insurer had parted with the ownership of the bus by transferring it to some other person much before the date of the accident; (2) That the bus, at the time of occurrence of the accident was being unauthorisedly driven by the conductor who did not have a valid driving licence in respect of heavy motor transport vehicle; (3) Both the driver as well as the conductor were heavily under the influence of alcohol; and (4) That the bus was overloaded beyond its permitted capacity at the time of occurrence of the accident.

WE do not consider that any of these points are so complicated as to necessitate the case being referred for adjudication and trial by the civil court. Hence we hold that the State Commission acted illegally and erroneously in declining to go into merits of the complaint and referring the complainant to the highly expensive and time consuming remedy by way of instituting a suit in a civil court. Accordingly we set aside the Order passed by the State Commission and remand the case to the State Commission for fresh disposal on the merits in accordance with law in the light of the observations contained in our order. No costs. Order accordingly.