Date of Filing:13.11.2007<br /> Date of Order:01.07.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 1ST DAY OF JULY 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 3055 OF 2006<br /> <br /> The Proprietor,<br /> Arun Engineering Enterprises,<br /> No.5/2, Nala Cross,<br /> Lalbagh 4th Cross Road,<br /> Bangalore-560 027. Complainant<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 3059 OF 2006<br /> <br /> The Proprietor,<br /> Arun Engineering Enterprises,<br /> No.5/2, Nala Cross,<br /> Lalbagh 4th Cross Road,<br /> Bangalore-560 027. Complainant<br /> <br /> <br /> V/S<br /> The Branch Manager,<br /> The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,<br /> CBO-11, No. 12/2, Mission Road,<br /> Bangalore-560 027. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> These two complaints are filed U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> The complaint No.3055/2006 and 3059/2006 are clubbed together since the facts and law points involved in these two complaints are one and the same and these two complaints are disposed off by common order.<br /> The facts of the case are that, the complainant has taken contractors All Risks Insurance Policy for the period between 22/3/2001 to 21/9/2001. During the polict period SGSW computers found damaged in Tumkur UGD-02T and immediately information was conveyed to the complainant. Opposite party who is the insurer was informed. Opposite party appointed Srinivasan as Surveyor and Surveyor visited the site. Complainant received letter dated 17/1/2003 asking for some requirements. Complainant submitted all the requirements and opposite party assured that the claim will be settled at the earliest. Complainant sent a legal notice. Non settlement of the claim is the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Delay in filing complaint is because of protracted correspondence between the complainant and the opposite party. Therefore, the complainant prayed that opposite party be directed to pay loss of Rs. 7,26,320 in complaint No.3055/2006 and Rs.8,96,578/- in complaint No.3059/2006 and to compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. <br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. Opposite party put in appearance and filed defence version denying the allegations made by the complainant and it is submitted that no proper records were produced in original before the opposite party. The claim was voidable due to breach of policy conditions. The complainant has not complied the policy conditions. The complainant is not valid before the Forum. There is no deficiency of service. Therefore, the opposite party requested to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. After hearing the matter the complaint was dismissed by my predecessor in office by the order dated 31st May-2007 on the ground of limitation. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the complainant went in appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission. The Hon’ble State Commission allowed the appeal and impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to District Forum for fresh disposal. After remand the matter was again heard. Arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties are heard. <br /> 4. The point for consideration is:- <br /> Whether there was any deficiency in service on the <br /> part of the opposite party?<br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. The learned counsel for complainant submitted before the Hon’ble State Commission that opposite party has not passed order either allowing or rejecting the claim of the complainant. The Hon’ble State Commission has observed in para-4 of the judgment as under:-<br /> The District Forum has dismissed the complaints as barred by time on the ground that the OP has rejected the claim of the complainant on 17/1/2003, whereas the complaints were filed on 13/11/2006. After going through the contents of the letter of the OP dated 17/1/2003, we are of the view that by the said letter the OP has not rejected the claim of the complainant but it has only expressed its difficulties in considering the claim for want of certain documents. Therefore, in the absence of any specific order by the OP rejecting the claim of the complainant, the complaints could not have been dismissed as barred by time. Hence, we are of the view that the matter requires reconsideration by the District Forum.<br /> <br /> The opposite party has sent a letter to the complainant on 17/1/2003. I have gone through the entire letter very carefully. It has been stated in the said letter that the complainant has not complied with the conditions and the complainant has not submitted details of receipt and accounting i.e., date of arrival of pipes, quantity of arrival, invoice, lorry receipts, place of unloading, quantity received in sound condition, quantity received in damaged conditions. All these requirements are not submitted by the complainant along with his claim form. The opposite party in the letter dated 17/1/2003 has noted that the complainant has not submitted the required information and documents. The opposite party has stated in the letter that they regret inability to consider the claim. Therefore, by the letter dated 17/1/003 it is very clear that the opposite party has not repudiated or rejected the claim of the complainant. The letter clearly shows for want of detail information and documents. The opposite party is not able to consider the claim. Therefore, it is up to the complainant to submit all the documents and information required as per the terms and conditions of the policy before the opposite party. Thereafter, the opposite party is entitled to consider the claim and settle the issue either by allowing the claim or rejecting the same. This Forum cannot adjudicate the claim of the complainant as an insurer. The duty of the Forum is to look into whether the repudiation of the claim is justified or not. It is not the duty of the Forum to allow the claim put forward by the complainant straightway without there being any order of reputation by the opposite party. It is up to the complainant to produce required documents and information and material before the opposite party and thereafter, the opposite party has to consider the claim of the complainant under the terms and conditions of policy. The Forum having no assistance of any expert opinion or original documents and material and required information, therefore, cannot decide the validity or otherwise of the claim put up by the complainant. It is only the opposite party insurance company has to decide the claim of the complainant after considering all the documents, information, material received from the complainant. After repudiation of the claim only the complainant will get cause of action to approach the District Forum against opposite party. Without their being any repudiation of claim the complaint filed by the complainant before the Forum is premature one. Therefore, the only order that could be passed in this case is that the complainant has to approach the opposite party with all the documents, information and material and request the opposite party to consider the claim and the opposite party has to decide the matter either allowing the claim or rejecting the same since the opposite party has not repudiated the claim so far. Therefore, there is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The only course now open for the District Forum is to direct the opposite party to consider the claim of the complainant on the available documents produced by complainant and then to either allow the claim or reject the claim. The opposite party has to be directed to disposed the claim of the complainant within 4 months from the date of this order. With this direction, the complaint is liable to disposed off. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The opposite party insurance company is directed to consider the claim of the complainant either allowing or rejecting the same within 4 months from the date of this order. The complainant will be free to submit all the documents, information and material as per the terms and conditions of the policy before the opposite party well in time. The complaint is disposed off accordingly.<br /> <br /> 7. The original of this order shall be kept in complaint No.3055/2006 and a true copy thereof shall be kept in other case. <br /> <br /> 8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 1ST DAY OF JULY 2008. <br /> <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />