TELECORD ELEKTRONIKS vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

MR. Gurdeep Singh, one of the partners of the firm-M/s. Telecord Elektroniks, Jalandhar has filed this complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ''the Act'') against the opposite parties-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and the National Insurance Company Ltd., claiming Rs. 8,50,670/- as detailed in para No. 11 of the complaint.

FOR the limited purpose of this order relegating the complainant to the Civil Court (if so advised), it is not only unnecessary but would be wasteful to delve too deeply into the facts and merits. It suffices to notice them in the barest outline. The complainant-Gurdeep Singh being one of the partners of M/s. Telecord Elektroniks, Jalandhar has pleaded in the complaint that he is carryingon the business of selling television and the allied electronic goods and for the security of the business, he got insured his business premises as well as the electrical goods with the opposite party-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Jalandhar Branch on 21.5.1989 for a sum of Rs. 4 lacs. The Insurance Policy was valid upto 20.5.1990. It is alleged that since the complainant-Firm had taken out loan facility from the State Bank of India, the policy was taken out by the same bank but unfortunately the cover note was not received by it for certain reasons. Therefore, the said bank on its own, took out another Insurance Policy on 25.9.1989 from the National Insurance Company Ltd., Nakodar Branch for a sum of Rs. 3 lacs for a period of one year. According to the complainant, on the night intervening 18/19.10.1989 a burglary took place in his business premises and the goods lying therein were stolen. The complainant lodged the F.I.R. at Police Station Division No. 4, Jalandhar regarding the said incident and also intimated about the loss to the Insurance Companies on 19.10.1989. The case of the complainant is that on receipt of his intimation, a Joint surveyor, namely Mr. N.K. Chhabra was appointed by the insurers to survey and assess the loss suffered by him on account of the aforesaid theft and the said surveyor assessed the loss to the extent of Rs. 2,50,670/-. It is alleged that in the month of December, 1991, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. called upon the complainant to pay the additional premium of Rs. 9,625/- and the National Insurance Company Ltd. also called upon the complainant to pay an amount of Rs. 863/- as additional premium so that his claim may be settled and paid. Having failed to receive any relief on making representations, the present complaint was preferred before this Commission on 22.12.1992.

On notices being issued, the Insurance Companies filed their version and have raised a preliminary objection that the claim of the complainant has already been repudiated after thorough investigation and consideration and their being no deficiency in service, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that there is ample circumstantial evidence that shows that no burglary had taken place and only a manupulation and padding was done by the complainant to get the false claim. It is further stated in the written statement that Mr. N.K. Chhabra, Surveyor had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 2,50,670/- but the said report of the surveyor was subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and the report of final investigation. The other allegations of the complainant were stoutly controverted by the opposite-parties and what was highlighted was the fact that Mr. S.S. Bajwa was appointed to investigate the matter and he opined vide his report (Annex.R-1) that no burglary had taken place in the business premises of the complainant. The complainant filed his rejoinder reiterating all the allegations made by him in the complaint. 5.In support of his case, the complainant rested himself content by filing the documents Annexures C-1 to C-23. No other evidence was adduced and no reason as to why the complainant himself had chosen to refrain from appearing in the witness box was indicated. In rebuttal, the Insurance Companies put on record the documents Annexures R-1 to R-16 besides filing the affidavits of Joginder Singh, Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company, Jalandhar and Mr. Y.K. Sood, Assistant Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Jalandhar. Both the parties were afforded opportunities to adduce any further evidence in support of their case. These however, were not at all availed of and this Commission was compelled to close their evidence. When the complaint is taken up today Mr. S.S. Aulakh, Advocate for the complainant and Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate for the opposite-parties expressly stated that they do not wish to lead any further evidence apart from the one noticed above. At their request, we have heard both the learned Counsel and considered the record with requisite care. 6. Perhaps at the very outset, it may be highlighted that the scope of a consumer dispute in the present context is somewhat limited. The complainant in order to succeed has to establish a patent deficiency in the service of the Insurance Companies, which they had undertaken to render. It is not for this Commission to go into the highly contested questions of fact or the complexity of legal rights of the parties under the Act. Viewed in the aforesaid contest, the onus however, light on the complainant is to show an apparent deficiency in the service on the part of its insurer. However, it would appear that the complainant has been somewhat cavalier in discharging the onus. What first meets the eye is the fact that neither the complainant nor any other partner of the complainant-firm has chosen to support the complainant''s case in the witness box. Obviously they are the best witnesses to depose directly with regard to the allegation of burglary made on behalf of the complainant. Therefore, in view of what has been indicated above, it is not possible to arrive at any categoric finding of fact. It is an old adage that complainant''s case has to stand on his own legs. It would be somewhat obvious in the present case that on his behalf, the complainant has been unable to lay a sure foundation of establishing as a fact that the burglary took place in his business premises on the alleged night of occurrence. 7. Apart from the inherent weakness in the complainant''s case, the opposite-parties virtually established their stand that the complainant''s claim did not appear to be true. It is not in dispute that immediately being informed by the complainant on 19.10.1989, the Insurance Companies appointed two Surveyors namely Shri N.K. Chhabra and Y.K. Sood, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 2,50,670/- payable by both the Insurance Companies. The Oriental Insurance Company appointed Sh. B.S. Sharma, Superintendent of Police (Retd.) of the National Detective and Consultancy Service, Jalandhar and the National Insurance Company Ltd. appointed Sh. S.S. Bajwa, S.S.P. (Retd.) as Investigators. Sh. B.S. Sharma vide his report (Annexure R.12) reported that burglary took place in the shop of M/s. Telecord Elekctroniks, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar on the night intervening 18/19.10.89 whereas Sh. S.S. Bajwa vide his detailed report (Annexure R.1) had opined that no burglary took place and reported as under:- "During the deep descrete, secret and scientific investigation of the case the undersigned has reached on conclusion that burglary in the shop of M/s. Telecord Electronics situated on the Nakodar Road, in front of Lal Rattan Cinema had not took place, but it has proved a handiwork of the insured. This is a totally a manupulation because the photo No. 1 taken by the insured before reaching of Police at the spot produced to the undersigned by the insured marked in (Red Ink 1 to No. 5) clearly prove that shutter of the shop which was hooked out with central lock has not been twisted by application of outer force like Jack or iron bars it clearly proves that cutting of shutter Kundas only removable portion and hooking of central lock with out any force application from outer side and leaving no marks of violence on the shutter''s door proves a handiwork of the Insured. Scientific investigation says that when hard surfaces come to in contact with each other they left mark on each other. But in this case how the shutter had been lifted, when the handle of the shutters also remained undamaged. I think thieves were not from Ali Baba Chalis Choor, if any, "Khul Ja Sam-Sam" and shutter was lifted and central lock hooked out within application of outer force. More over there was one aluminium door about three or four inches away from the shutter, how it has escaped from any outer force violence marks. The photos taken by the undersigned clearly proves this fact, that no outer force has been used to open the shutter. Because camera never miss anything (Dr. Modi) Scientific investigation authority. 2. ASI I/O has failed to observe such minute points of scientific investigation. The finger prints were lifted by the Police from the scene of crime and sent to Finger Print Bureau Phillaur to detect the crime, but Police did not took the sample slips of finger prints of the owner and workers working in the shop for comparision with the lifted marks sent to Phillaur. This attempt of the I/O has not proved fruitful. The affidavit filed by Mr. Narinder Singh and sons Nakodar Road, has proved false during deep investigation because father and son both contradict to each other regarding scene of crime. M/s. Telecord Elect. Gurdeep Singh is to pay about fifty thousand rupees, in committee business, to Gurmeet Singh but he is not paying to Narinder Singh son of Gurmeet Singh, so due to this contention Narinder Singh has filed false affidavit to the Insurance Company. Any how this affidavit proved a blessing in disgise for the Insurance Company that the truth has come openly-out. This is a manupulation, padding has been done by the insured to get false claim from the Insurance Companies. 4.(i) Mr. Gurdeep Singh produced a certificate of untraced report issued by ASI Jasbir Singh P.S. Divn. No. 4, dated 21.1.1990 which is attached at page No. 20 for ready reference. (ii) One more certificate by Sr. Supdt. of Police Office regarding untraced report dated 13.1.1992 is also attached at page No. 92 but date of sending case as untraced is not mentioned. (iii) From the inspection of Police file by the undersigned case has been sent as untraced on 12.3.1990. From 1 and 2 effort of the insured clearly proves that then he tried to get untraced reports inhumed way to get his false claim settled.

THE insured had never maintained his stock register and he had not produced before the surveyor and undersigned. Not maintaining the stock register by the firm arises big doubt that whether the stock shown as stolen was brought in the shop or not or had created the scene of burglary to be fool the everybody. In conclusion this burglary has not taken place but a manupulation padding and handiwork of insured has been proved scientifically beyond any doubt." When the two Investigators appointed by the Insurance Companies have given different versions regarding the alleged burglary in the business premises of the complainant, a serious doubt about the complainant''s claim has arisen. In view of what has been stated above, it seems unnecessary to labour the point. In fact, in this context, it would be unfair to the complainant to record any concluded finding of fact which may prejudice his case in a Court of law. On the basis of what has been noticed above, it is inevitable to conclude that the insurers herein took all the necessary steps to process the claim lodged by the complainant. On adequate material established on the record, a serious doubt about the same was raised. Ona consideration thereof, the Insurance Companies had come to a bona fide conclusion that the claim of the complainant was not tenable and was conesquently repudiated. Once that is so, it is difficult and indeed impossible in the consumer jurisdiction to hold that there was patent deficiency in the service which the insurers had undertaken to render. Inevitably, the complainant must fail in his attempt to seek redressal within the summary jurisdiction under the Act. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, we regret our inability to finally adjudicate the matter of this case. THE present case is directly governed by the dictum laid down by the National Commission in M/s. Janta Machine Tools v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 1991 (2) CPR 18. We are firmly of the view that the issues involved herein cannot be resolved except in ordinary process of the civil law. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.