M.TEX PROCESSORS vs SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD

A complaint was filed by M. Tex Processors, Bhilwara under Section 36B(a) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for brief the Act) levelling allegations against the respondent that they indulged in unfair trade practices falling within Section 36A(1)(ii) and (viii) of the Act.

THE brief facts as contained in the complaint can be summarized as below. The complainant, for protection against loss by house-breaking or burglary, took an insurance policy from the respondents for the period from 29th October, 1990 to 28th October, 1991 for an amount of Rs. 25.5 lakhs. Some unknown persons forced entry into the premises of the complainant on the night of 26.10.1990 and took away valuable stocks of cloth worth Rs. 13.34 lakhs. A First Information Report was lodged with the police. The respondents on the basis of reports supplied by the Surveyor-informed the complainant that the insurance had been repudiated for the reasons that proper books of accounts of stock were not kept, the stocks reported to have been lost in burglary have been confiscated by the Excise Department and certain statements in the form of affidavit of the chowkidars on the incident could not be taken as evidence of forcible entry.

The Director General of Investigation and Registration (the DG) was asked to investigate and submit the Preliminary Investigation Report (PIR). In the PIR, the DG did not suggest any action against the respondent. According to the DG, apart from lack of merits on factual basis no support was available for the complainant from legal angles also.

WE gave an opportunity to the complainant under Section 20(2) of the MRTPC Regulations, 1991 and heard arguments advanced by Mr. S.S. Kumar, Advocate for the complainant. The Advocate for the complainant argued that Section 4(2) of the Act does not bar enquiry by this Commission in this matter as there is no provision under the Insurance Act to seek redress by the complainant. He cited a number of cases admitted and adjudicated upon by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission relating to insurance claims. Further he argued that the respondents had repudiation of the complaint on the basis of report submitted by the Surveyor appointed by it and it is open for the Commission to look into the action of the respondent in not admitting the claim of the complainant. One of the reasons given by the respondent is that the claim related to the goods which were confiscated by the Excise Department and were kept only in the custody of the complainant. According to the Advocate for the complainant, the insurance policy clearly covered "goods in trust or on commission" for which the ensured is responsible and therefore the contention of the respondent''s is not tenable. We have given careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the complainant and also looked into the facts of the case. The charge levelled against the respondents relates to Section 36A(1)(ii) and (viii) of the Act. In order to prove the charges against the respondent there should be acts on the part of the respondents, which could be described as either unfair or deceptive. In this case we find that no misrepresentation on the part of the respondents has been brought out. We find that the respondents examined the claim of the complainant and after following the procedure for scrutiny of the claim, which included obtaining the report of the Surveyor, came to the conclusion that the claim was not tenable. We are unable to see any unfair method or misrepresentation or deficiency in service on the part of the respondents to come to the conclusion that prima facie the respondents indulged in unfair trade practice. However, the Advocate for the complainant argued that goods which did not belong to the complainant but which were held in its custody on behalf of the Excise Department were also covered by the insurance policy and the respondent''s stand was incorrect. If the complainant feels that there is a breach of contract it is open for the complainant to seek remedy in a Civil Court. Under Section 4 of the Act the jurisdiction of the Commission is to supplement the provisions of other laws and not to supplant them. In view of what is stated above, we are of the view that no prima facie unfair trade practice on the part of the respondents in this case has been established and the DG has also not recommended any action. In the premises, we are of the view that the complaint need not be entertained and deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Complaint dismissed.