1999 (1) TMI 455 - Commission - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deficiency in service by the insurance company.
2. Validity and genuineness of the insurance claims.
3. Jurisdiction and appropriateness of the Consumer Forum vs. Civil Court.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deficiency in Service by the Insurance Company:
The primary issue was whether the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. was deficient in its service by not settling the insurance claims made by the complainant. The complainant argued that the insurance company failed to settle claims for losses due to a fire accident caused by an electrical short-circuit. The District Forum initially held that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company for not settling the claims despite being liable to pay compensation. However, the insurance company contended that their investigation indicated the claims were not genuine and the cause of the fire was suspicious.

2. Validity and Genuineness of the Insurance Claims:
The insurance company appointed a surveyor who reported inconsistencies in the complainant's statements regarding his presence at the time of the accident. The surveyor's report suggested that the fire's rapid spread was unusual for an electrical short-circuit, and the shop's door number did not match the policy's specified location. Additionally, the complainant's failure to submit necessary claim forms and lease documents further cast doubt on the claim's authenticity. The insurance company argued that these factors justified their suspicion and subsequent repudiation of the claim.

3. Jurisdiction and Appropriateness of the Consumer Forum vs. Civil Court:
The insurance company argued that the District Forum should have referred the matter to a Civil Court, citing precedent cases where thorough investigations by surveyors led to the conclusion that claims were not tenable. The National Commission's decisions in similar cases emphasized that disputes involving detailed factual investigations and substantial evidence should be adjudicated in Civil Courts, where both parties could fully present their cases.

Conclusion:
The appellate authority concluded that the insurance company had justifiably repudiated the claims based on thorough investigations and relevant findings. The inconsistencies in the complainant's statements, the mismatch of the shop's door number, and the complainant's premature filing of complaints without submitting necessary documents supported the insurance company's decision. The judgment emphasized that the complainant should pursue remedies through a civil suit rather than the Consumer Forum. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the District Forum's order was set aside, and the complaints were dismissed without prejudice to the complainant's right to approach a civil court for appropriate reliefs. Appeals allowed.