AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
MR . M.K.S. Singh, Advocate who appears for Mr. Suman Doval, Counsel for the complainant says that he is ''Proxy'' and has been asked to seek adjournment on the ground that Mr. Suman Doval is unable to appear due to personal difficulty. We told him that complaint has been filed through Mr. Suman Doval and Mr. Vijay Bhan Singh Rawat, Advocates and to our question as to why Mr. Vijay Bhan Singh Rawat could not appear, Mr. M.K. Singh had no answer. When two Counsels had jointly signed the complaint absence of second Counsel has not been explained. Request for adjournment is declined.
IN this complaint filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, complainant has made claim for Rs. 80.83 lakhs against the opposite party-Insurance Company arising out of (i) money spent in repairing (Rs. 3,57,445); (ii) loss of production (Rs. 37.50 lakhs); (iii) debt servicing (Rs. 24,84,000/-); (iv) wages paid to employees (Rs. 5.28 lakhs); and (v) mental harassment and agony (Rs. 5.00 lakhs). Complainant took insurance policy for Rs. 22,65,955/- for the period from 22.3.1999 to 21.3.2000 in respect of its plant and machinery. On 20.7.1999 furnace in the plant broken down due to crack. On 6.8.1999 information was given to the Insurance Company and it was on 25.1.2000 claim for Rs. 2.82 lakhs was submitted.
ON 10.3.2000 Insurance Company repudiated the claim as not falling within the scope of the insurance policy. This led the complainant to file this complaint on 13.2.2002 claiming aforesaid reliefs. Since the Insurance Company held that loss did not fall within the terms of the policy it did not assess the loss, if any sustained by the complainant.
IN support of its submission that loss was not covered under the insurance policy, Insurance Company has referred to General Exception 4 of the policy and also to the report of the Surveyor it had appointed. Against a claim of Rs. 2.82 lakhs which the complainant made in its claim on 20.1.2000 when accident occurred on 20.7.1999 and repudiated by the Insurance Company on 10.3.2000 it is astonishing that how that claim would add upto to 80.83 lakhs. It is clearly an abuse of the process of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as no Court fee is payable and there is no limit to any claim that would be advanced. It is one of those complaints which is clearly an abuse of the process of the Act and brings the very object to the naught. It is not necessary for us to go into the question as to how it would be possible for us to decide this claim in our summary jurisdiction. We, therefore, dismiss this complaint with costs which we assess at Rs. 10,000/-, out of which Rs. 5,000/- will be payable to the NCDRC Bar Association for legal aid. Such a payment shall be made by way of demand draft/cross cheque drawn in the name of NCDRC Bar Association and the same shall be sent to Mr. S.K. Sharma, President, NCDRC Bar Association at his address X-33 (at the back of U Block) Green Park (Main), New Delhi.
HOWEVER , this dismissal will not come in the way of the complainant in seeking its remedy elsewhere if permissible under law.