RAJDEEP LEASING AND FINANCE And OTHERS vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. And OTHERS

THIS appeal has been filed by the complainant in Case No. C 62/90 on the file of the State Commission, Delhi challenging the order dated February 13,1991 passed by the State Commission dismissing the complaint petition on the ground that the proper remedy to be pursued by the complainant was to institute a suit in the regular Civil Court.

THE complainant is a financing company, whose activities include the financing of purchase of motor vehicles on hire purchase basis. Under such an arrangement the complainant hired out a truck bearing registration No. DEL-2193 to the opposite party No. 3 under a hire purchase agreement dated July 10,1986. At the time of entering into the said agreement the complainant company, at the instance of opposite party No.3, got the truck insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. (Opposite Party No.2) and got the policy renewed from year to year. THE insurance policy in respect of the said vehicle had been renewed for the period from 21.4.1987 to 27.4.1988 for a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- and the policy had been assigned in favour of the complainant. THE case put forward by the complainant is that while the aforesaid vehicle was being plied by the opposite party No. 3, the vehicle was stolen on September 29, 1987 from Uttam Nagar Bazar where it had been parked by its driver. THEreupon the driver employed by opposite party No. 3 lodged F.I.R. No.281/87 under Section 379 I.P.C. with the "Police Station, Vikaspuri, New Delhi and simultaneously intimation regarding the alleged theft was given to the Insurance Company also. Ultimately, the police could not trace the vehicle and a final report dated May 26, 1988 to the effect that the vehicle was not traceable was filed before the Magistrate. The opposite party No.3 then lodged a claim with the Insurance Company for payment of the full value of the stolen vehicle. The said claim was pursued by the complainant in its capacity as the assignee of the policy. The Insurance company by its letter dated June 12,1989 addressed to the complainant repudiated its liability. Thereupon the complainant sent a legal notice to the Insurance Company on November 21,1989 in response to which the insurer again repudiated its liability. Thereafter the complainant approached the State Commission with the prayer that the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 should be directed to pay to it the amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- with interest at 18 per cent per annum from the date of lodging the claim till the date of payment.

The Insurance Company represented by opposite party Nos.1 and 2 filed a detailed written statement submitting that the claim of the complainant had been carefully scrutinized and got fully investigated by them and it was repudiated by the company because on such investigation and scrutiny the claim was found to be false and fabricated. In the written statement filed by the Insurance Company full details are mentioned about two separate surveys which had been conducted and also three separate legal opinions obtained in the matter by the Insurance Company from eminent Counsel and it is stated that it was only after careful consideration of all these materials that the decision to repudiate the claim'' was taken bonafide by the Company.

THE State Commission has taken the view that on the facts and circumstances of this case it cannot be said that the Insurance Company did not apply its mind fully and carefully before repudiating the claim of the Complainant and that the proper remedy to be resorted by the Complainant in case it feels dissatisfied with the decision taken by the Insurance Company is to approach the ordinary Civil Court by instituting a suit. In support of the said view the State Commission has relief on the decision rendered by this Commission in M/s Janta Machine Tools v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (O.P. No. 12 of 1990) dated August 21,1990. Shri P.N. Lekhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant strongly contended before us that no reliance should have been placed by either the Insurance Company or the State Commission on the final report filed by the Police because in making the said report there had been a gross violation of the procedure in Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is not necessary for us to express any opinion on the merits of this contention in view of the conclusion reached by us that the State Commission was right in holding that on the facts and circumstances of the present case it cannot be said that the Insurance Company had repudiated the claim without proper application of its mind after holding an investigation and hence if the complainant feels aggrieved by the decision of the Insurance Company that the claim was false and fabricated the proper remedy to be resorted to is only the institution of a civil suit As and when such a suit is instituted the probative value of the final report made by the police is one of the aspects which will fall for consideration by the Court. All that need be stated for our present purpose is that the rejection by the Insurance Company of the claim put forward by the Complainant after obtaining and considering two separate survey reports from qualified Surveyors and three legal opinions from different eminent Counsel cannot be said to constitute a deficiency in service so as to give rise to a cause of action for a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. The present case is directly governed by the dictum laid down by this Commission in M/s Janta Machine Tools v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. I (1991) CPJ 234 (NC). In the light of the foregoing discussion, we confirm the order passed by the State Commission and dismiss this appeal. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.