SHARMA GOEL AND COMPANY vs ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), is directed against order dated 4.10.2001, passed by District Forum (Central), I.S.B.T., Kashmiri Gate, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 1120/1999 - entitled M/s. Sharma Goel and Company v. THE Oriental Insurance Company Limited.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are that the appellant, a partnership concern through one of its partners, had filed a complaint, before the District Forum, under Section 12 of the Act averring that the appellant had purchased a Ceilo car, bearing registration No. HR-26-C-9451, on 2.5.1996. It was stated that the car so purchased by the appellant was financed by Canara Bank and was insured with the respondent for the period from 6.5.1997 to 5.5.1998 for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-. THE abovesaid vehicle was stolen on 18.4.1998. An intimation regarding the theft of the car was given to the concerned Police Authorities of Police Station, Hauz Khas, New Delhi who registered FIR No. 254/1998 on 18/19.4.1998. It was stated that the respondent was also duly informed about the theft of the car in question and thereafter a claim under the policy was preferred by the appellant with the respondent on 30.4.1998. On receipt of information/claim from the end of the appellant, the respondent appointed a Surveyor Shri K.R. Thapar to investigate and assess the loss. Said Shri Thapar investigated the matter and submitted his report and on the basis of the report of the Surveyor a cheque for Rs. 2,75,000/- instead of insured amount was delivered to the appellant on 15.12.1998. In the complaint, filed by the appellant before the District Forum, the grievance of the appellant was that the appellant should have been paid full insured amount together with interest. The claim of the appellant, in the District Forum, was resisted by the respondent. In the reply/written version filed on behalf of the respondent, the respondent Insurance Company had taken certain preliminary objections stating that the complaint, filed by the appellant, was misconceived, vague and deserved to be dismissed. On merits, it was stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent as the respondent, soon after receipt of intimation, appointed a Surveyor to investigate and assess the loss and as per the report of the Surveyor the claim of the appellant had been settled for Rs. 2,75,000/- which amount has been accepted by the appellant without any protest. It was stated that the complaint, filed by the appellant, was devoid of merit and be dismissed.

The learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has held that there was no merit in the complaint, filed by the appellant and on the basis of the above finding has dismissed the complaint, filed by the appellant. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. On the basis of documents/material on record it is not in dispute that the car in question belonging to the appellant was insured for Rs. 5,00,000/- with the respondent Insurance Company for the period from 6.5.1997 to 5.5.1998. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question was stolen on 18.4.1998 and regarding theft of the vehicle due intimation was given to the Police Authorities and claim was preferred with the respondent Insurance Company. It is also not disputed that the respondent Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor Shri K.R. Thapar, who submitted his report and on the basis of the report, submitted by the Surveyor, assessed the loss. A sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- has already been paid to the appellant on 15.12.1998. The sole question requiring consideration by us in the present appeal is that in the given facts whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Insurance Company. As already stated the respondent Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor, Shri K.R. Thapar to investigate and assess the loss. Said Shri Thapar investigated the matter and submitted his report assessing the loss in terms of the policy. The case of the respondent Insurance Company, as projected before the District Forum, was that the appellant in full and final satisfaction of his claim had accepted the amount of Rs. 2,75,000/- without any protest and had signed the discharge voucher also. To satisfy ourselves, we have put a specific query to the learned Counsel for the appellant on the point as to whether, at the time of receiving the amount of Rs. 2,75,000/- and signing the discharge voucher, any protest was lodged by the appellant and the learned Counsel for the appellant in all fairness conceded that no such protest was lodged either at the time of receiving the amount in full and final satisfaction of the claim or at the time of signing the discharge voucher. It was stated by him that thereafter in April, 1999, the appellant had addressed a communication to the respondent lodging his protest. In our opinion, the subsequent communication alleged to have been addressed to the respondent by the appellant after 4 months of receiving the amount in full and final satisfaction of his claim and that too without any protest is of no consequence. Moreover, as per settled law culled out from various judicial decisions, the scope of judicial review of an administrative action is limited one. Thus, viewed from all angles, the present appeal, filed by the appellant is devoid of substance. The learned Counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in case United India Insurance v. Ajmer Singh Cotton and General Mills & Ors., II (1999) CPJ 10 (SC), and a decision of the Hon''ble National Commission in case National Insurance Company Limited v. Lal Chand Jain and Sons, 1997 NCJ 625. We have gone through the above decisions, relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant in support of the case of the appellant. In so far as the proposition of law laid down therein by the Hon''ble Supreme Court and by the Hon''ble National Commission is concerned there can be no two opinions but the fact remains that the abovesaid decisions in no way help the case of the appellant in the present appeal as the same are distinguishable because no material has been brought on record either before the District Forum or before us on the point that the discharge voucher or the receipt in question was obtained by the respondent under the circumstances which can be termed as fraudulent or exercise of undue influence or by misrepresentation of the like or the appellant was compelled to give valid discharge voucher to the respondent unwillingly and unwarrantedly.

IN view of the position explained above, the present appeal, filed by the appellant, is devoid of merit. The same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.