AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M /s. Vishal Singh Ramdas -petitioner herein, who was the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Morena, Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum'' for short), being aggrieved by the Order dated 14.2.2005 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission'' for short) in Appeal No. 765 of 2001, has filed the present Revision Petition.
BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are: - Complainant/petitioner had taken a Marine Insurance Policy No. 2145060400220 on 11.1.1993, which was valid up to 10.1.1994. Initially, the risk covered under the Policy was of Rs. 5,00,000 but the same was got enhanced to Rs. 15,00,000 w.e.f. 22.1.1993 on payment of additional premium by the petitioner. The dispute arose between the parties on account of repudiation of the claim put forth by the petitioner in respect of 541 tins of Ghee valued at Rs. 4,90,000 allegedly purchased by the petitioner from M/s. Indo Nippon Food Limited, Gurgaon, Haryana and dispatched to Morena through truck No. MP -07B/9953 booked through Gwalior Andhra Roadways, Delhi vide consignment receipt No. 222 dated 29.1.1993. Case of the petitioner was that the consignment along with the truck was lost during transit and, despite best efforts, the whereabouts of the said truck or consignment could not be traced. Prior intimation of the purchase and despatch of goods and intimation of its lost was given to the respondent -Insurance Company. The petitioner submitted the claim in prescribed form to the respondent which repudiated the same vide its Order dated 12.7.1995 leading to the filing of the complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'' for short).
RESPONDENT -Insurer justified the repudiation of the claim. It was averred in the written statement that on receipt of information of loss, respondent appointed Bhagwati Investigation Agency to investigate into the claim. The Investigation Report dated 20.9.1993 was submitted by the Investigator which revealed that consignment note No. 222 dated 29.1.1993 was bogus. The matter was investigated further by the same Investigating Agency and one Surveyor, viz., R.M. Gupta, who vide his two Reports dated 12.6.1994 and 28.5.1994, respectively, confirmed that the entire story of the loss of consignment along with truck was highly suspicious and the claim lodged by the petitioner was fraudulent. District Forum, after taking into consideration the pleadings as well as the evidences led before it, allowed the complaint holding the respondent -Insurance Company deficient in its service and, accordingly, directed the respondent to indemnify the petitioner for the loss suffered by him. Respondent was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4,91,769 to the petitioner along with interest @ 12 % per annum w.e.f. 29.1.1993 till realisation. Rs. 5,000 were awarded by way of damages and Rs. 500 as cost of litigation.
AGGRIEVED against the Order passed by the District Forum, respondent -Insurance Company filed an Appeal before the State Commission, which by the impugned order, has reversed the Order passed by the District Forum and held that the claim made by the petitioner was bogus and fraudulent. Accordingly, while allowing the Appeal of the respondent, the complaint was ordered to be dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
AGGRIEVED against the Order passed by the State Commission, the present Revision Petition has been filed.
LEARNED Counsel for the parties have been heard at length.
THERE are tell - tale circumstances which go to show that the claim made by the petitioner is bogus and fraudulent. Petitioner did not have the licence to deal in Ghee. He has also not filed the gate pass, which is generally issued by the companies when the goods are taken in or out of the gates of the company. He has also not filed the Sales Tax Certificate. In his statement in evidence, he has not stated that he had either obtained a licence to deal in Ghee or a Sales Tax Licence. He has also not put on record the cash memo/sale bill issued by M/s. Indo Nippon Food Limited, Gurgaon, Haryana while selling the Ghee to the petitioner.
ALTHOUGH , the petitioner had claimed to be dealing in the purchase and sale of ghee but on investigation, it was revealed that beyond the two transactions, one on 15.1.1993 and second on 29.1.1993 (which is in dispute), no other transaction was made by him. Basically, he is dealing in jewellary business. Although, the petitioner had purchased the Ghee at two different places but the same were booked through the same transport service, i.e., Gwalior Andhra Roadways, Delhi. State Commission, in its Order, has noted that the two transactions dated 15.1.1993 and 29.1.1993 made by the petitioner are with a gap of 14 days and carry successive serial numbers 221 and 222 as if the transport company had not done any business during the intervening period of 15 days.
BOTH the purchases were made by one Kailash Chand on behalf of the petitioner. He has filed his affidavit in evidence. In his cross -examination, he admitted that he is neither the employee of the petitioner nor a broker or commission agent for purchase or sale of such commodity.
THE two Investigators, who made statement on oath on verification, have stated that no transport company by the name Gwalior Andhra Roadways, Delhi was found in existence at the given address. There was a small signboard on the door of a small room of first floor but there was no sign of any transport business. Investigation Report, which has been put on record, shows that there is a Union Office of the transporters on the gate of M/s. Indo Nippon Food Limited, Gurgaon, Haryana which fact is admitted by Kailash Chand in his cross -examination as well. Every truck entering the factory and coming out with the goods is to get it registered with all necessary details regarding the vehicle, its owner and driver. However, no such entry was made in the register of the Union with respect to the truck carrying consignment in question.
IT is interesting to know that petitioner has not made either the transport company or the driver of the truck as a party -respondent. Petitioner has not taken any action against the transport company except issuing of notice. Affidavit of driver who carried the goods in his truck has also not been filed.
WE have gone through the Report submitted by the Investigator as well as the Assessor which clearly points out to the fraud which may have been played by the petitioner. Investigator as well as Assessor were cross -examined but in cross -examination, the petitioner could not bring out anything to challenge the veracity of the testimony of either the Investigator or the Assessor regarding the Reports submitted by them.
QUESTIONS involved in the present case are disputed questions of fact. In view of the Report submitted by the Investigator and the Assessor, the repudiation of the claim of the petitioner by the respondent -Insurance Company cannot be termed as arbitrary. For resolving such disputed questions of fact, it requires taking of voluminous evidence. The petitioner would be well advised to knock the doors of Civil Court where after detailed trial, the truth can be ascertained.
THE Order passed by the State Commission, which is well -considered and in accordance with law, is not liable to be interfered with. After carefully examining the material on record, it was found that the Order of the District Forum was contrary to the evidence led by the petitioner. State Commission has given sound reasons for holding that the claim of the petitioner was bogus.
WE agree with the view taken by the State Commission and dismiss the Revision Petition with costs which are assessed at Rs. 5,000.
DISMISSAL of the complaint would not debar the petitioner from approaching the Civil Court or any other Forum for the redressal of his grievance. Insofar as limitation is concerned, petitioner may file an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay and, if any such suit is filed with the aforesaid application, then, we have no doubt that the Civil Court would consider it in accordance with law keeping in view the observation made by Hon''ble the Supreme Court of India in Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, reported in II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC)=(1995) 3 SCC 583.