ORAL
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P. Lucknow.
Appeal No.1239 of 2010
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
570, Naigaum Cross Road next to Roya Industrial
State Wadala (W), Mumbai through Office
Incharge, Reliance General Insurance Company
Limited, 1st Floor Rohit House-1, Shahnajaf Road,
Hazratganj, Lucknow. …Appellant.
Versus
1- Ajit Kumar s/o Sri Surendra Singh,
R/o Harsh Nagar, Sarai Mira, Kannauj (UP)
2- Smt. Parul Gupta w/o Upneet Gupta,
R/o Mohalla, Kachahari Tola, Kannauj
(UP) Agent. .…Respondents.
Present:-
1- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Presiding Member.
2- Hon’ble Smt. Sudha Upadyay, Member.
Sri Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for appellant.
Sri J.P. Saxena, Advocate for the respondent no.1.
None for the respondent no.2.
Date 1.5.2024
JUDGMENT
Per Sri Sushil Kumar, Member- This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 31.5.2010 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Forum, Kannauj in complaint case no.99 of 2009, Ajit Kumar vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. & ors., whereby the ld. District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties no.1 & 2 to pay insured amount of Rs.52,000.00 alongwith interest @ 6% p.a.
As per the allegation of the complainant, he took an insurance policy for his vehicle no.UP 74 B-6392 on 28.11.2008. This vehicle collided on 14.3.2009 and sustained damages.
The insurance claim was submitted before the insurance company who appointed a surveyor to assess the loss but denied the claim on the ground that the cheque which was provided by the complainant as premium amount was dishonoured but this fact was never informed by the insurance company to the complainant. The insurance company by submitting the written statement stated that the cheque which was paid for payment of premium was dishonoured by the bank due to insufficient amount in the account of the complainant. Therefore, policy was not in existence and the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.
Upon consideration the evidence submitted by the parties, the ld. District Consumer Forum concluded that the insurance company is liable to pay the above mentioned amount to the complainant.
Ld. counsel for the insurance company argued that since the cheque was dishonoured, the insurance company is not liable for damages caused to the vehicle due to accident. He placed his reliance on “United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Khairati Ram Salwan & anr.” decided on 15.12.2015 in which the ld. NCDRC concluded that the cheque carrying the premium amount was dishonoured by the bank and the company informed the complainant/respondent no.1 about dishonouring of cheque and cancellation of policy in question, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay compensation because the agreement was without consideration which is void under section 25 of the Indian Contract act and further under section 65 of the said Act.
The ld. counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the case of Karur Vysya Bank vs. Pullugujju Venu Madhav & anr., I(2017) CPJ 242 (NC). In this case, the cheque carrying the premium was dishonoured but the insurance company did not immediately informed the complainant after getting the information about dishonour of the cheque. Thus, the deficiency on the part of the insurance company was established and the insurance company was directed to pay Rs.25,000.00 as compensation.
On perusal of both the rulings this fact is clearly established that if the cheque carrying premium is bounced and the insurance company informed the complainant after getting the information from the bank then the insurance company is not liable to pay the insured amount but if the insurance company fails to inform the complainant regarding dishonouring of cheque then the insurance company is bound to pay compensation because the complainant was not able to pay the premium amount by issuing another cheque or cash payment.
The insurance company in its written statement never mentioned that the complainant was inform regarding dishonouring of cheque, therefore the above mentioned rulings are applicable in favour of the complainant/ respondent.
Ruling submitted by the ld. counsel for the appellant itself clarifies the position that information was given to the complainant/respondent about dishonouring of cheque and cancellation of policy in question but in the case in hand, the insurance company never mentioned in its written statement that they had informed the complainant/respondent no.1 about dishonouring of cheque and cancellation of policy in question. Therefore, the judgment and order passed by the ld. District Consumer Forum is perfect and according to the provision of law and needs no interference.
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
If any amount is deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of this appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, may be remitted to the ld. District Consumer forum concerned for satisfying the decree as per rules alongwith accrued interest upto date.
The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself.
Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.
(Sudha Upadhyay) (Sushil Kumar)
Member Presiding Member
Jafri, PA I
Court 2
