Delhi

Central Delhi

CC/94/2015

PARAMJEET SINGH NANDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHOLAMANDALAM M/S GENRAL INSURANCE - Opp.Party(s)

21 Sep 2016

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/94/2015
 
1. PARAMJEET SINGH NANDA
479E U.G. FLOOR.11 MMANJLISH PARK ADRESH NAGAR AZADPUR DELHI-110033.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. CHOLAMANDALAM M/S GENRAL INSURANCE
PLOT NO. 6, 3rd FLOOR NEAR METRO PILLOR.NO. 81 KAROL BAGH NEW DELHI
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. MOHD. ANWAR ALAM PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. VIKRAM KUMAR DABAS MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. MRS. MANJU BALA SHARMA MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 21 Sep 2016
Final Order / Judgement

ORDER
               Dated:  17.10.2016

Mohd. Anwar Alam, President



1.     The complainant has filed this complaint on 09.04.2015 and
alleged that his vehicle HR 26L 0213   Maruti Suzuki Baleno was
insured by the OP vide cover note no. 9772727 dated 02.10.2013 valid
from 02.10.2013 to 01.10.2014 and the complainant paid premium Rs.
4015/- by cash to OP who has issued the cover note.   The insured
vehicle was stolen on 26.05.2014 and FIR no. 297/2014 U/s 379 IPC was
registered in PS Mahindra Park.  Police officials failed to trace the
vehicle and filed untraced report . Complainant filed a complaint to
the OP and on 10-03-2015 Ms. Jyoti official of the OP asked him to
deposit copy of the untraced report.   Complainant sent the copy of
untrace report with FIR and cover note to the OP  but despite so many
efforts no payment was made by the OP which amounts to deficiency in
service. Hence, it is prayed that OP be directed to pay  the value of
vehicle Rs.2,00,000/- litigation charges Rs.50,000/-  for mental and
financial agony Rs. 1,00,000/- , cost of insurance cover note Rs.
4015/- and court fee of Rs  200/- totaling to Rs. 3,54,215/-.

2.     In reply, OP denied the insurance of the vehicle of
complainant.  OP also denied that the vehicle was insured with OP vide
cover note no. 9772727. It was also denied that complainant paid Rs.
4015/-  in cash to the OP. OP stated that  complainant is not a
consumer and he has no locus standi to file the present complaint
against OP.

3.     The complainant has filed rejoinder to the reply and explained
that the objections filed by OP are baseless. In support of his
complaint ,complainant filed his affidavit along with documents  i.e.
copy of the R.C. (Ex. CW1/A), copy of cover note (Ex. CW1/B), copy of
FIR  (Ex. CW1/C) , Copy sent to RTO Gurgoan( Ex. CW1/D), copy sent to
director NCRB (Ex. CW1/E), copy of representation dated  04.03.2015
(Ex. CW1/F) and copy of registered post dated11.03.2015 ( Ex. CW1/F1).

4.     In support of reply ,OP filed affidavit of Sh.Amit Kumar
(Assistant  Manager - Legal) along with confirmation of cover note.

5.      Both the parties filed their written arguments.

6.     We have heard the arguments and considered the evidence led by
the parties and their written and oral arguments.  In this case points
to be considered are as under:-

(a)  Whether complainant is a consumer?

 (b) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?

(c) Relief.

7.     As OP denied the cover note  Ex. CW1/B filed by the complainant
hence   this document was examined by forum. This is not a legible
document and it is not suffice to prove the cover note issued by the
OP. Complainant in his affidavit deposed that he has paid  Rs. 4015/-
by cash to agent of the OP   but the receipt of the premium is not
produced by the complainant in evidence.  While Sh. Amit Kumar
Assistant Manager of OP  deposed in his affidavit that no premium
amount of the insurance policy was paid to the OP and  OP did not
issue any policy certificate or the cover note. He also deposed that
the cover note no. 9772727  does not bear any signature or seal of the
insurance company and it is a fake document.  In absence of the
receipt of the  premium  paid to OP, the deposition of the complainant
cannot be belived.  It is pertinent to mention herein that when the OP
denied the cover note and its issuance  then it was the duty of the
complainant to file the affidavit of the agent of the OP to whom he
has paid the premium amount of the insurance policy.

8.     Looking to above mentioned facts and circumstances we are of
the considered opinion that complainant has failed to prove the cover
note of the insurance policy by OP and deposit of the premium amount
of policy , therefore, complainant is not a consumer and has  no locus
standi to file  this complaint against OP.

9.     As complainant is not a consumer, therefore, there is no need
to decide remaining points of consideration by this Forum.  Hence
complaint is dismissed.  Both the parties will bear their own cost.

10.                         Copy of the order be made available to the
parties as per law. File be consigned to record room.



Announced on this ………………
 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. MOHD. ANWAR ALAM]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. VIKRAM KUMAR DABAS]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. MRS. MANJU BALA SHARMA]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.