R.S. METALS PVT. LTD. vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

THIS is an appeal against the Order dated 19th of February, 1991 in Complaint Case No. 70/89 of the State Commission of Rajasthan.

THE appellant here and the complainant be- fore the State Commission had purchased a 400 HP Motor Mather Platt which was insured with the respondent - New India Insurance Company here and Opposite Party in the Complaint Petition. This motor got burnt on 8.4.1987 giving rise to the claim against the insurer under the insurance policy. THE State Commission in an elaborate order awarded an amount of Rs. 23,988/- to the appellant-petitioner on the ground that the Opposite Party - Insurance Company had accepted, on the basis of documents and the surveyors report, its liability to pay the said amount. But a further investigation by M/s. Sudesh Ahuja Associates revealed that the claim for Rs. 1,53,720/- was based on fake bills. The Appellant-Complainant, however, came in appeal against the order of the State Commission. The Appellant submitted that the Respondent-Insurance Company had appointed three surveyors, first Shri B.D. Gupta, then Shri Subhash Kapoor and Shri B.D. Gupta as joint surveyors, and finally M/s. A.K. Gupta & Associates. The Respondent-Insurance Company withheld the reports of the first two surveyors because they did not suit them. The third surveyor assessed the loss under the policy of insurance wrongly, arbitrarily, unjustifiably and without any basis and against facts in evidence and made unjustified, deductions from the loss assessed by him.

On the basis of the appeal petition this Commission came to the conclusion that the Appellant had railed to justify any interference by this Commission with the order of the State Commission on the amount awarded to him.

WHILE going through the order of the State Commission it was observed that the State Com- mission had come to a finding that certain evidence adduced by the Appellant-Complainant before the State Commission was fake. The observations and finding of the State Commission on this point are briefly set out below: It had been claimed by the Appellant-Complainant that the burnt motor was got repaired for Rs. 1,53,720/- through M/s. Khan and Sirohi Steel Rolling Mills, Bulandshahar but the State Commission after examination found that M/s. Khan and Sirohi Steel Rolling Mills have neither undertaken any repairing work nor they have received any payment through the cheque dated 25th March, 1988 by which the Appellant-Complainant claimed to have made the payment. In fact, it was submitted "before the State Commission that the bill on the letter head form of the Rolling Mills was not genuine and the signatures were not of the firm''s Manager or Partner and that the bill of M/s. Khan and Sirohi Steel Rolling Mills was fake. As regards the material bill for Rs. 99,595/- in the name of M/s. R.M. Machinery Traders. Chawri Bazar New Delhi it transpired that there was no firm in the name and style of M/s. R.M. Machinery Traders in existence or functioning from the Chawri Bazar as on date nor any such firm had ever operated on the address given on 4.1.1988 for this amount in the name of M/s. R.S. Metals was without any date of doubt, a fake bill.

THE Respondent-Insurance Company did take the plea before the State Commission that bills for the repair of the machine and for materials (Exhibits 14 & 15) having been found to be false fake no amount was payable to the Appellant- Complainant under the policy of Insurance. However, as already stated above, the State Commission awarded Rs. 23,988/- on the ground that the third surveyor recommended it and the Respondent-Opposite Party had accepted the same as payable to the insured. On going through the order of the State Commission this Commission felt concerned, that the complainant had been given some relief even though the State Commission found him guilty of submitting fake bills and fabricating evidence in support of his complaint. This Commission has felt that not only the appeal deserved to be rejected but there was a case for re-examination of the order of the State Commission. Therefore in exercise of its suo-motu power of revision, by our order of 21st April, 1992 the Appellant-Petitioner was afforded an opportunity to show cause as to why the Order of the State Commission to the extent it is in his favour should not be re-examined and revised. For this purpose the case was adjourned to the 23rd of July, 1992; On the adjourned hearing the counsel for the Appellant-Petitioner was unable to sustain the order of the State Commission to the extent it is in favour of the Appellant in fact, in the appeal memorandum there is no challenge to the observations and findings of the State Commission about the submission of fake bills in support of the Appellant''s claim. What he said in the grounds of appeal is reproduced below: "Because the impugned order dated 19.2.91 Hon''ble State Commission has given undue importance to the alleged fact that the Appellant has produced false and fake documents in support of its claim for Rs. 1,53,720.10"

THIS Commission, however, feels that the State Commission has not given due Importance to the misconduct - may criminal misconduct - on the part of the Appellant - complainant in support of his complaint. It is evident that the Appellant- complainant has misused the Consumer Protection Act and the machinery setup under the Act to prosecute a complaint on the basis of false and fabricated evidence. THIS is reprehensible and must be discouraged strongly. THIS is particularly important because the Consumer Protection Act provides cheap and quick redressal of genuing consumer''s grievances and it is a matter of paramount public importance that no person should misuse the remedies available under this Act for lodging false complaints on the basis of fabricated evidence and harass the persons who supply goods or render services. We, therefore, set aside the order of the State Commission and dismiss the complaint filed by the Appellant. The appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the Respondent as costs. Appeal dismissed with cost.