KHODABHAI MANIBHAI Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the complainant is as follows. Ambalal M. Patel, since deceased (deceased for short) was his uncle. The deceased had taken two accident insurance policies, one from opponent No.1 United India Insurance Company Limited and the other from opponent No.2 the New India Assurance Company Limited. The insurance policies were valid for the period from April 2,1980 to April 1, 1981. It is alleged that during construction of a room the deceased was injured on his right leg by iron nails on June 18,1980. Later on he developed tetanus and died on June 28,1980,. The complainant, as nominee, has filed this complaint for recovery of the amounts due under the two insurance policies from the opponents.

(2.) After the death of the deceased, claims were lodged with the opponents for the sums assured and there was a long correspondence between the complainant and the opponents in regard to the claims. According to the complainant, he supplied all the relevant information and documents to the opponents. The opponents, however, did not pay the claims. Therefore notice was given to each of the opponents through the complainant's Advocate. The opponents, however, did not pay the claims. The complainant, therefore, filed suits being Civil Suit Nos.2726/81 and 2843/81 against the opponents for the recovery of the sum alleged to be due under the insurance policies. The opponents resisted the suits and inter alia contended that the insurance policies were fraudulently obtained after the death of the deceased. The City Civil Court dismissed the suits by common judgment delivered on September 29/30, 1987. Appeals being first appeal Nos.1170 and 1171 of 1988 preferred against the said common judgment were dismissed by the High Court on June 27,1991. It is stated that the complainant had preferred Special Leave Petitions against the judgment of the High Court. We do not know what has happened to those Special Leave Petitions. However, the fact remains that on the same subject matter as in the complaint, the complainant had filed civil suits as aforesaid and the suits were dismissed by the City Civil Court. Appeals against the decision of the City Civil Court were dismissed by the High Court. In the background of the above facts, we fail to see how the complainant could have approached this Commission by way of this complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint is obviously barred by principle of res-judicata. The complaint is also barred by limitation. We are also unable to understand as to how a common complaint could have been filed against two opponents. There was separate contract of insurance with each of the opponents and it was incumbent upon the complainant to file two separate complaints if they were maintainable under the law. However, this technical objection need not detain us. The fact remains that the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has unnecessarily wasted public time and money by filing this false and frivolous complaint. This complaint, in our opinion, deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) In the result, this complaint is dismissed. The complainant is directed to pay to each of the opponents Rs.10.000/- by way of costs.