Delhi

New Delhi

CC/572/2008

Ramesh Singh Solanki - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Oriental Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

22 May 2019

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTRICT NEW DELHI,  M-BLOCK, 1^ST FLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P. ESTATE. NEW DELHI-1100001.

 

C.C.No.572/2008

 

Sh. Ramesh Singh Solanki,

R/o 6770, Kila Kadam Sharif,

Nabi Karim, Pahar Ganj,

New Delhi.-55.

 

 …..Complainant

                                                                                                 Vs.

 

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Divisional  Office-10,

15-16, Scindia House,

K.G. Marg,

New Delhi-110001.

 

......Opposite Party

 

 

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

 

O R D E R

 

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P. under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of a TATA-INDICA  bearing Registration No.DL IYA-3579 duly insured  with OP vide policy  No.212200/31/2006/2548 for the period from 6.10.2005 to 5.10.2006.  On 9.8.2006,  the vehicle in question met with an accident at Daula Kuan, New Delhi, therefore, the alleged vehicle was taken to M/s Auto Link Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. The concerned police was informed on the same day.  The alleged vehicle is still lying in the above said workshop till date in the accidental condition as the insurance co. had repudiated the claim.  Further, the complainant filed his claim of the said vehicle as per estimate of repairs which were prepared by the workshop mentioned above along with all the necessary documents. 

2.     The complainant contacted one Sh. Inderjeet Singh, clerk of OP Co., who advised the complainant to pay Rs.6000/- and come after two days. The same were paid by the complainant.  Sh. Singh informed the complainant that claim would be approved for a sum of Rs.79,000/- and he demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- more but the complainant was not in a position to arrange such a big money.  After few days, the son-in-law contacted OP Co. regarding the claim then it was informed that the claim case has been closed.  The complainant lodged the claim before the Ombudsman but nothing has been done till date, hence this complaint.

3.     Complaint has been contested by the OP.  In its written statement O.P has not disputed that complainant had taken policy referred above. OP stated that the present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable because the complainant has not only violated the policy terms and conditions but played a fraud upon the OP by fabricating DD NO.9 dt. 25.8.2006.  The OP has already lodged an FIR against the complainant at Daula Kuan P.S.   It is stated that the claim of complainant was repudiated on 26.9.2007 and all the details were mentioned in the said letter.  It is further stated that as per policy terms and conditions, the complainant is supposed to inform the OP immediately happening of any loss but in the present case intimation was given after 16 days after the loss which is in violation of policy terms and conditions.  It is also stated that it is one of the mandatory clause of policy that vehicle must be driven by a licensed driver holding a valid and effective driving license but in the present case, the complainant failed to produce the licence of the driver.  As such, the claim was rightly repudiated by OP Insurance Co.

4.     Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavit.  

5.     We have heard arguments advance at the Bar and have perused the record.

6.     Perusal of the complaint shows that the case involves the complicated question of facts  on various issues such as  i) the policy does not bear the signatures of the complainant ii) signature has been forged by OP with the intention of committing fraud iii) Due to continuous threat and coercion by the OP complainant was forced to pay the premium to tune of Rs.55,607/-. etc.

5.     Perusal of the complaint shows that the case involves the complicated question of facts  on various issues such as  i) the policy does not bear the signatures of the complainant ii) signature has been forged by OP with the intention of committing fraud iii) Due to continuous threat and coercion by the OP complainant was forced to pay the premium to tune of Rs.55,607/-. etc.

 

 

8.       Admittedly, the Consumer Forum deals with the complaint in a summary proceeding, where cases involve a great deal of evidence, the same cannot be adjudicated upon by the Forum & for which the party concerned has to approach the civil court where elaborate procedure including recording of evidence is followed.

9.     In case titled Punjab Lloyd Ltd. Vs Corporate Risks India Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 2 SCC 301, it was held that the complicated question of law should be decided by the regular court. It further held that the decisive test in not the complicated nature of question of fact and law arising for decision. In another case titled LIC & Ors. Vs Surinder Kaur & Ors. Civil Appeal No.5334 or 2006 (Arising or of SLP (c) No.17866 of 2005) decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 01.12.2006, it has been held that complex question of facts cannot be decided by the consumer forum under the Consumer Protection Act and such arises can be subject matter of regular Civil Court.

 

10.    In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint involves complicated questions of cheating and forgery which require elaborate oral and documentary evidence and the examination of the witnesses for the proper disposal of the matter.  The proper forum for adjudication of the present complaint is Civil Court.  Consumer Protection Act being the special Act where only summary proceedings are taken up and as such the adjudication of the present complaint is beyond the scope and jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum.  We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the present complainant cannot be adjudicated by way of Summary Proceeding; hence the present complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to approach the Civil Court as per law.

 

A copy of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post.  Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced in open Forum on22/05/2019.

 

 

                              (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                         PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                           (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                         MEMBER