Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/14/1274

VISHNU P. VISHWAKARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

BAJAJ ALLIANCE LIC - Opp.Party(s)

08 May 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 1274 OF 2014

(Arising out of order dated 27.05.2014 passed in C.C.No.158/2011 by District Commission, Bhopal)

 

VISHNU PRASAD VISHWAKARMA,

S/O SHRI SURESH SINGH,

VILLAGE-MANDORI, TEHSIL-HUZUR,

KERWA DAM ROAD, BHOPAL (M.P.)                                                                … APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

BAJAJ ALLAINZ LIFE INSURANCE CO.LTD.

THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER,

MANSAROVAR COMPLEX,

BHOPAL (M.P.)                                                                                           …. RESPONDENTS.   

                     

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                : PRESIDING MEMBER

            HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA   :          MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Mohan Chouksey, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Ms. Sangeeta Moharir, learned counsel for respondent.

 

 O R D E R

(Passed On  08.05.2023)

                        The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member:

 

                         This appeal by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) is directed against the order dated 27.05.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.158/2011, whereby the complaint filed by him has been dismissed.

2.                In brief, facts of the case as stated by the complainant are that the two agents of opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘insurance

-2-

company’) namely Manish Dev and Yogendra Tomar filled proposal form and had received Rs.30,000/- in cash from him, for obtaining the insurance policy no.0080634268 in his favour  on 28.10.2007. The duration of the said policy was 10 years and the sum insured was Rs.1,50,000/-. He received the policy on 02.02.2008.  It is alleged that on 28.10.2009, when he enquired about the policy, it was told that the receipt is forged one and the cheque presented towards premium was dishonored and therefore the same was returned. The authorized agent of the insurance company gave him receipt and he has received the policy on 02.02.2008 by post. The insurance company never informed him about dishonor of cheque which amounts to deficiency in service. He therefore approached the District Commission by way of filing complaint seeking relief.

3.                The opposite party-insurance company resisted the complaint stating that the insurance company did not issue any policy to the complainant.  In fact, the matter was investigated and it was found that the payment for the said policy made by cheque no.153000 of ICICI Bank, M. P. Nagar, Bhopal dated 26.12.2007 was bounced which was returned to the complainant with required information. The complainant was asked to produce the receipt regarding cash payment but he could not produce the same. There is no such provision to send back the cheque or give any information without asking. There is no deficiency in service on part of the

-3-

insurance company and therefore the insurance company cannot be held liable. It is thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

4.                Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

5.                Learned counsel complainant argued that the District Commission has passed the impugned order against the law and principles of natural justice. The District Commission did not consider the documentary evidence filed on record. The District Commission has not considered this important aspect that the agents of the insurance company had obtained premium towards insurance policy and had given receipt and thereafter he received the policy.  If the cheque was dishonored, the insurance company ought to have informed the complainant in writing at the address given in the form. The insurance company failed to produce any record regarding dishonor of cheque. The insurance company did not put forward that what action they have taken against their faulty agents. He argued that the impugned order deserves to be dismissed.

6.                Learned counsel for the opposite party-insurance company argued that the premium paid by cheque for obtaining the policy was dishonored, thus when no consideration was paid for obtaining the insurance policy, the insurance company did not issue any policy and as such, the insurance company cannot be held liable for deficiency in service.

 

-4-

She argued that the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint.

7.                The complainant has filed his affidavit along with documents C-1 to C-6 in support of his complaint. The OP-1 has filed affidavit of Shri Naveen Saxena, Manager, Operations, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co.Ltd. 8.             From the record, we find that the stand of the complainant is that he had given amount in cash towards premium to the agents. C-1 is the First Premium Receipt filed by the complainant himself which clearly says that this receipt is subject to realization of the amount of Rs.30,000/- given in the  and policy will be issued subject to realization of premium amount. C-2 is letter dated 03.01.2008 by which the policy was issued.  C-4 is the letter dated 16.11.2009 of the insurance company addressed to the complainant in which it is stated that in reference to your letter we have investigated the matter and as per our records, we find that we have received the amount by cheque only. It is further mentioned that we tried to contact you on mobile number 9200296838 available in our records, but we are not able to get in touch with you. Cheque no.153000 dated 26.12.2007 of ICICI Bank issued by the complainant for a sum of Rs.30,000/- was also enclosed with the letter. In the said cheque, it has been specifically mentioned by the bank that the account closed. We find that there is no difference in signatures of the complainant on cheque and on the complaint.

-5-

9.                Thus it is clear that the receipt as well as policy was issued subject to realization of cheque amount towards premium but when the amount was not paid to the insurance company, the insurance company cannot be held liable as there is no consideration paid and therefore, the complainant cannot be termed as consumer of the insurance company.

10.              In view of the aforesaid discussion we are of a considered view that the District Commission after proper appreciation of evidence available on record passed the impugned order dismissing the complaint. We do not find any ground to call for interference. 

11.              We do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. It is upheld.

12.              In the result, the appeal being devoid of any merits is dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

                         (A. K. Tiwari)             (D. K. Shrivastava)

                  Presiding Member                 Member