SHEEL KUMAR NARENDRA PAPER PRODUCTS vs National Insurance Co Ltd

-APPELLANT was the complainant before the State Commission, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent National Insurance Company Ltd.

UNDISPUTED facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant owned a factory, by name, M/s. Narendra Paper Products, a unit of Kumar Electrodes Pvt. Ltd. , and was engaged in the manufacturing of paper-cones and paper-cone pipes. While the paper-cones are utilized in textile industries for winding of thread, the paper-cone pipes are utilized for winding of finished paper to form a paper roll. The unit was financed by the Uttar Pradesh Finance Corporation (UPFC) and they had a cash-credit limit from Indian Overseas Bank, Muzaffarnagar. There is no dispute that there was a fire episode in the night of 6th and 7th August, 1998. There is also no dispute that the appellant/complainant had an insurance cover for the valid period. Episode of fire was reported to the Fire Brigade, Police as also to the respondent Insurance Company. It was the case of the complainant that fire was caused by sparking/electrical short-circuiting. The claim was preferred for Rs. 12,45,486. 30 with the respondents, who appointed a Surveyor, whose report is on record, the relevant part is as follows: "in view of the above stated facts/observations and in absence of any police investigations denying the possibility highlighted at S. No. 4 above, it is not certain that the fire has been under accidental circumstances as far as insured is concerned, hence the decision in regard to the admissibility of this claim as per the terms and conditions of Fire Policy ''c'' under reference, is left to the discretion of the underwriters. If the insurers, so desire, can appoint an independent investigator to look into the probable cause of the damage/damages. " Despite this finding, the Surveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 1,11,078 but subject to the terms, conditions and exceptions of the insurance policy. In the light of Surveyor report, the respondent appointed investigator on the fire damage, whose conclusion is as follows: "from the contents of para 2 of report, existence of electric connection prior to loss in the insured premises cannot be ruled out. However, it is a bit strange that the electric connection which was illegal all along was regularised only about 40 days prior to loss. "

The respondent Insurance Company also appointed another investigator, whose conclusion is as follows: "from the above delineated facts the undersigned is of the opinion that the insured business had not been running in good position and he had also under the pressure of non-payment dues of worth Rs. 10 lacs to his financier, i. e. UPFC, for which he had been helpless to meet with such circumstances and had been compelled but naturally to set the unit under fire as there had been no possibilities of electric short circuit. The insured''s intention was the mala fide intention due to the un-avoidable circumstances so he did not report the matter with the Police to avoid the said incidental circumstances from the Police Investigation. Conclusion hence, the claim preferred by the insured is a fictitious one and under the obligatory circumstances for which the insurer shall not be liable to indemnify the planned suffered loss by the insured and the Surveyor''s assessment had also been framed without the evidence of proper documents. "

BASED on these reports, the respondent Insurance Company repudiated the claim vide their letter dated 22. 9. 2000. It is in these circumstances, a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties and perusal of material on record, dismissed the complaint holding that since there was no electricity supply and there is no evidence, led by the complainant/appellant to rebut the report of the Surveyor and the two investigators, hence, the complainant has failed to prove the cause of fire. Aggrieved by this order, this appeal has been filed before us. When the matter was taken up for admission hearing on 6. 5. 2008, the learned Counsel for the appellant sought time to bring on record additional evidence as also the expert report to counter the findings of the Surveyors and the two investigators, for which as prayed, 8 weeks time was granted. When the case was again taken on 10. 7. 2008, no report was filed and further two weeks time was sought, which was granted. When the matter was taken on 30. 7. 2008, further time was sought by the learned Counsel for the appellant to comply with our order dated 6. 5. 2008. We are afraid that Consumer Fora who are expected to decide the case within stipulated time, cannot afford to be extraordinarily liberal towards any party. It was for the appellant/complainant to have come up with the requisite material, within the time sought by him. Since this has not been done, we go on to dispose of the case based on the material on record.

WE heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. We have already reproduced the observations of the Surveyor as also the findings of the two investigators. There is nothing on record to contradict any of these reports. Even before us, the appellant has failed to rebut the findings on the cause of fire, observed by the Surveyor and the two investigators that the cause of fire could not be on account of electrical short circuit, for the reasons given in detail in the reports. Another dimension of the case is that undisputedly the factory had been closed for over 1 months and was under the lock and key of UPFC, to whom the appellant/complainant had not paid the dues. Interestingly UPFC is not a party before us. If there was no production, there was no question of any stock as observed by the surveyor, whereas the claim of the appellant is to the extent over Rs. 12 lakh. Unquestionably in order to go into the whole question of the quantum of stock/loss etc. , it will call for details, which will further call for elaborate evidence to be led by the parties. Since parties will be expected to lead elaborate evidence to go into the question of details of the claim at issue, which cannot be gone into by the Consumer Fora, in summary jurisdiction as per law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Munimahesh Patel, IV (2006) CPJ 1 (SC)=vi (2006) SLT 436=2006 CTJ 1073 (SC) (CP), in which the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as follows: "13. The nature of the proceedings before the Commission as noted above, is essentially in summary nature. The factual position was required to be established by documents. Commission was required to examine whether in view of the disputed facts it would exercise the jurisdiction. The State Commission was right in its view that the complex factual position requires that the matter should be examined by an appropriate Court of Law not by the Commission. "

IN view of above, the appellant/complainant shall be at liberty to seek remedy before a Civil Court, if so advised. In case the complainant decides to go before the Civil Court, then he can take advantage by way of getting a set-off for the period spent before Consumer Fora, under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, as per law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works v. P. S. G. Industrial Institute, II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC)= (1995) 3 SCC 583. The appeal stands disposed off in above terms. Appeal disposed of.