Delhi

New Delhi

CC/883/2013

Harish Hans - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. New India Assurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

11 Mar 2020

ORDER

 

 

          CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI),

 ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                               NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.C.C./883/2013                                        Dated:

In the matter of:

          Sh. Harish Hans,

S/o Sh Satish Kumar,

R/o 97, Indira Vihar,

G.T.B. Nagar,  Delhi-09. 

                                   …… Complainant

 

Versus

New India AssuranceCompany Ltd.,

Through SDM, E-9, 2^nd Floor,

Connaught House, Connaught Place,

New Delhi-110001.            ……. Opposite parties

 

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

ORDER

       

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant obtained Household Insurance policy duly insured with the OP Co. vide its policy bearing No.310400/48/10/32/00000120 w.e.f. 10.12.2010 to 09.12.2011, for this purpose he paid a premium of Rs.7909/-.  It is alleged that the OP had issued “all risk  policy” to the complainant and the articles/jewelry was insured against any cause whatsoever including accident or hardship whilst kept, worn or carried anywhere in India  under  the valid/insured period. It is stated that on 7.12.2010, the complainant was going to his jeweler shop for some repair work from Indira Vihar to Kingsway Camp and lost his articles/jewelry and complainant suffered a loss of Rs.8,00,000/-. An intimation was  given to Police Station, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi on the same day.  A NCR vide diary No.1874/4/2011 dated 8.12.2011 was issued by the official of PS Mukherjee Nagar.  It is further stated that the complainant had given all the necessary documents to the OP Insurance Co. to settle his genuine claim but the claim of the complainant was  repudiated by OP Insurance Co. vide its letter dated 8.10.12 on the flimsy ground.   It is also stated that the complainant made many deliberations/requests to the OP Insurance Co.  for settling the claim but nothing has been done  by the OP till date, hence this complaint.

2.     Complaint has been contested by OP.  OP has filed its w.s. wherein it denied any deficiency in services on its part and stated that the complainant had obtained household insurance policy seeking the coverage of various hold articles including jewelry.  It is further stated that the complainant informed that entire jewelry has been lost on 7.12.2011 while it was being carried by the complainant in the pouch which was kept at the bottom of the bag.  After receiving the information, Insurance Co. appointed Sh. Ram Gopal Verma for investigating the case.  It is stated that the complainant is a practicing advocate and was not maintaining any locker.  It is further stated that on 7.12.11, he  carried all the jewelry in the bag and was going to Kingsway Camp for repair work of jewelry, he has kept the jewelry in a pouch and kept it at the bottom of the bags, there were some files in the bag also.  After about walking one K.m. from his house it was noticed that the bag has torned from the bottom side and the jewelry pouch was missing.  OP has also submitted that the complainant could not explain the exact  purpose of carrying all the jewelry at night time of about 7 p.m. at the market.  It is further submitted that the complainant did not provide any purchasing bills of the jewelry/gold coin.  It is doubutful that the insured had so much jewelry.  Sources of jewelry could not be verified.  The insured is not financially sound and does not have regular source of income and failed to take reasonable care of jewelry in question, hence, repudiation is justified.

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

4.     We have heard argument advance at the Bar and have perused the record.

5.     Perusal of the complaint shows that the case involves the complicated question of facts  on various issues such as  i) whether the  complainant has in his possession the jewelry in question. ii) whether the OP had deliberately rejected the claim of the complainant iii) there is NCR against the theft of the jewelry and no FIR or further investigation is carried out to trace out the same, hence, the actual loss could not be verified in the summary proceedings before this Forum.

6.       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.

7.     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.

 

8.     In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint involves complicated questions of facts as well as law. This issue  required 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 on 11/03/2020.

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                                                                (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                                                                            MEMBER