Taken up through video conferencing.

1.     Mr. Shubhendu Kaushik, Advocate, learned proxy Counsel for the Opposite Parties (‘Insurance Co.’), requests for an adjournment.

This Complaint was filed in 2016 under The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘Act 1986’); it is listed for final hearing today.

On the last date, 07.12.2020, also, it was listed for final hearing; however, briefs of written arguments had not been filed by either side, opportunity was thus granted to the learned Counsel for both sides to file their respective briefs within two days each.

The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act 1986 speaks of “speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes.”

The request for adjournment made today is politely declined.

Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocate, learned Counsel for the Complainant (‘Complainant Firm’) is requested to commence his arguments.

Mr. Vineet Malhotra, Advocate, learned Counsel for the Insurance Co. would be afforded opportunity on the next date.

2.     Heard arguments from learned Counsel for the Complainant Firm.

Perused the entire material on record, including inter alia the Complaint made by the Complainant Firm, the Written Version filed by the Insurance Co., copy of the F.I.R. dated 11.09.2014 lodged by the Complainant Firm with the Police and the Survey Report dated 27.02.2016 of the second Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Co.

3.     The Complaint relates to dacoity in the showroom of the Complainant Firm.

An F.I.R. under Section 395 of the I.P.C. (Punishment for dacoity) was lodged with the Police. ‘Particulars of properties of interest’ and ‘Total value of property stolen’ are not indicated in the F.I.R., the concerned columns (columns no. 9 and no. 10 in the F.I.R.) are blank, actual or tentative value of the loss is not mentioned in the F.I.R. (as per the translated copy of the F.I.R. furnished by the Complainant Firm). Some culprits were apprehended by the Police, some recoveries were made by the Police. 

The Complainant Firm made a claim of Rs. 2,22,74,856/- with the Insurance Co. The first Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Co. assessed the loss at Rs. 16,37,000/- (para 12 of the Written Version). The second Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Co. assessed the loss at Rs. 7,40,057/- (Survey Report dated 27.02.2016). 

In its Complaint, the Complainant Firm has prayed for an amount of Rs. 2,22,74,856/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the incident along with compensation of Rs. 40,00,000/- and cost of litigation.

In its Written Version, the Insurance Co. has inter alia averred that the Complainant Firm has deliberately and intentionally concealed 05 letters (para 6 of the Written Version), that the Complainant Firm categorically admitted during the course of investigation by the Surveyor that the claim was exaggerated (para 9 of the Written Version), that fraud has been sought to be played by the Complainant Firm in exaggerating the claims and claiming higher amount than the amount for which the loss had taken place (para 10 of the Written Version), that the Complainant Firm forged bills with a view to exaggerate the claim which amounts to adopting fraudulent means and devices to obtain a claim (para 11 of the Written Version), that the claim is not payable in view of deliberate, intentional and fraudulent means adopted by the Complainant Firm to seek higher compensation (para 12 of the Written Version).

4.     Noting the entire material on record, and noting the specificities of the evidence involved, this matter, for apt adjudication on merit, to do justice to it, requires recording of extensive oral evidence and proving extensive documentary evidence as per the provisions of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and adherence to the substantive and procedural provisions of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, that is best undertaken in a civil court.

In other words, the matter, as discernible from the entire material on record, and from the specificities of the evidence involved, is not found to be such as can be aptly adjudicated on merit in summary proceedings by quasi-judicial Consumer Protection Fora established under The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (new Act 2019).

5.     There is no need to trouble learned Counsel for the Insurance Co. for his arguments.

6.     In the light of the above discussion, 

[a] the Complaint is returned, un-adjudicated; and

[b] the Complainant Firm is at liberty to seek remedy in a competent civil court as per the law.

It goes without saying that the right of the Complainant Firm to agitate its case before any competent authority remains unaffected.

But quasi-judicial Fora established under the Act 1986 (new Act 2019), to provide additional remedy to Consumers, in summary proceedings, are not for it.

It also goes without saying that the Complainant Firm, if it chooses to bring action in a civil court, is free to file application under Sections 5 and 14 of The Limitation Act, 1963, and, in such contingency, the chronological proceedings in this Commission would be material and relevant towards making such application.

7.     It is made explicit that this Commission has consciously refrained from entering into the merits of the matter, or to make a critique, since the right of the Complainant Firm to seek remedy in a competent civil court or to agitate its case before any competent authority survives, and this Commission does not in any manner want to colour the vision of any court / authority.

It is also made explicit that this Order has been passed on considering the particular facts and specificities of the instant matter, as evinced from its record.

8.     So disposed.

9.     A copy each of this Order be sent to both sides by the Registry within three days from today.