DIAMOND ELASTOMERS Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We do not propose to go in detail into the facts of these two connected cases for the reasons to be indicated hereinafter.

(2.) Common questions are raised in these two connected original petitions filed by two sister companies which were engaged in the manufacture of plastic molded rubber shoes. The companies had taken out policies of insurance with the opposite party herein - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. -covering the risk of fire and also consequent loss of profits resulting from any fire accident. On 5thMay, 1988 a devastating fire is said to have damaged the machinery and buildings in the factories of both the companies and it is alleged that substantial loss was suffered by the two companies by reason of the destruction of the buildings and the machinery. The Insurance Company settled the claim of the two companies under the fire claim policies. With respect to the policies relating to loss of profits, the Insurance .Company repudiated the claims on the ground that there had not been due compliance by the petitioner companies with the conditions stipulated in the policy relating to the obligation cast on the insured to take speedy steps for restarting of the business and thereby minimising the loss due to interruption of the business. After having gone through the records, we are of opinion that it cannot be said in this case that the repudiation of the claims made by the Insurance Company is prima facie either arbitrary or un-reasonable. It may be that a detailed investigation of facts may lead to a contrary conclusion but such investigation involves adducing of elaborate oral and documentary evidence and determination of complicated issues of fact and law. We do not think such an investigation can be satisfactorily con-ducted in proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, nor are the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums expected to go into such questions.

(3.) We have already indicated that in the present case, it is not possible to say that the repudiation of liability was not made by the Insurance Company after due application of its mind to relevant fact sand circumstances. Such being the position, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company so as to entitle the complainants to seek relief from the Consumer Forum. The proper remedy to be resorted by the petitioners is to approach the ordinary Civil Court for adjudication of the right sunder the policies hence, we dismiss these petitions reserving liberty to the petitioners to pursue their remedies before the ordinary Civil Court. We make it clear that nothing contained in this Order shall operate to their prejudice in any manner in the matter of getting an adjudication of all issues from the Civil Court. The original petitions are dismissed on the limited ground mentioned above. No costs. O.P. dismissed.