DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.551/2013
Sh. Pushksar Kapoor
6, Raj Block, Naveen Shahdara,
Delhi-110032 ….Complainant
Versus
1. CPP Assistance Services Pvt. Ltd.
R-89, Greater Kailash-I,
New Delhi
2. Claims Head
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
GE Plaza, Airport Road,
Yarwada, Pune-411006 ….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 31.10.13 Date of Order : 03.11.18
Coram:
Sh. R.S. Bagri, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
ORDER
Naina Bakshi, Member
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 17.08.12 the complainant took membership of OP No.1 by paying Rs.1287/- for any fraud transaction from my his credit card with effect from 17.08.13 to 16.08.13. It is stated that on 28.05.13 at 1 p.m. the complainant lost his wallet alongwith credit cards which was reported to OP No.1 on 28.05.13 at 4 p.m. later on reported to CPP on 28.05.2013. Complainant came to know that his credit cards was used and an amount of Rs.2,15,000/- withdrawn. It is submitted that the complainant within 24 hours of card loss reported the matter to the nearest police station and provided full particulars of actual credit card loss. It is stated that the complete process was followed for initiating the claim and provided the following documents:-
a. complete claim form.
b. attested copy of FIR.
c. card statements indicating fraudulent transaction.
d. letter of subrogation on Rs.100 stamp paper.
e. photo identity proof.
f. latest photographs.
It is submitted that there was inordinate delay in settlement of complainant’s claim and the complainant contacted several times at the customer care (1800-419-4000) and wrote e-mails (feedback@cppindia.com) but the complainant did not receive any satisfactory answer from OP No.1. Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice on 09.10.13 to OP No.1 but to no avail. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint with the following reliefs:-
“a. Refund the amount of fraud transaction of Rs.2,15,000/- alongwith interest charges levied by the bank of credit cards.
b. Pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the physical strain and mental agony suffered by the complainant.
c. Pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.
When no one appeared on behalf of the OP No.1 to contest the claim of complainant, OP No.1 was proceeded exparte vide order dated 22.05.14.
In the written statement OP No.2 has inter-alia stated that the complainant is guilty of concealing and suppressing the material facts from this Forum and the complainant in his complaint had alleged that on 28.05.13 the complainant had lost his wallet containing three credit cards and he reported the same to OP No.1. On the other hand the actual and factual matrix is that the complainant had taken the insurance policy No.OG-13-1113-6602-00148013IA0465503 from OPs which provides insurance against default fraud transaction. The complainant claimed under policy alleged fraudulent transaction done against HDFC Bank credit card 4617 8620 0263 9011, HSBC credit card 4862 6989 0413 6181 and SCB credit card 4541 9823 3440 9384. It is submitted that the OP-2 upon receipt of the claim appointed independent and expert investigators namely M/s Accurate Investigators to verify the alleged loss. As per the Investigator report investigator visited all the three merchants where the alleged transactions were made and collected information/photographs of the persons who had done the fraudulent transaction. It is stated that the investigator asked the complainant to lodge FIR against the person appearing in the photographs. However, the complainant did not co-operate with the investigator to lodge FIR. It is submitted that the reported fraudulent transaction was done by the complainant himself alongwith one lady appearing in the photographs. It is stated that the complainant had deliberately with malafide intention did not disclose the reason of the repudiation of claim of the complainant and the terms conditions of the insurance policy, which provides that if the beneficiary shall claim knowing the same to be false or fraudulent, as regards the amount or otherwise. This policy shall become void and all the claims hereunder shall be forfeited. Since the complainant himself has committed the fraudulent transaction, as such complainant’s claim was repudiated. OP-2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
In rejoinder to the written statement of OP No.2 the complainant has stated as follows:-
“4 …I say that the opposite party 2 has alleged that I did not co-operate with the investigator agency and I myself did this transaction. However the actual and factual matrix is that opposition party 2 has appointed M/s Accurate Investigators to investigate my claim and they asked me to submit documents along with FIR and claim form which I submitted according to their satisfaction and further they asked me to visit the merchant place and for this also I took leave from my office and visited with investigation agency to merchant, infact Investigating agent met me 5 times during his investigation and all the time I readily met and pacify his queries but fact of the matter is that investigating agency deliberately asking for those documents, which are impossible to arranged, so that they can justify the rejection of my authentic claim as after submitting all the documents mentioned in claim form again I was asked by investigation agency to submit another FIR against the given photographs and I went to the same police station where I registered my first FIR but as per police official they cannot issue 2 different FIR for one complaint and I explained this to investigating agency. This allegations that I did not co-operate the investigation agency is based on misleading and false allegations to deny my claim.
6. … It is submitted that ill intention of the opposite party-2 demonstrates that from the very fact that they did not bothered to make my photographs with the images captured in CCTV and falsely claiming that my photographs which is captured in CCTV image, my original photograph is already annexed in with Annexure-A which is not matching with the provided photograph of investigation agency….”
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand affidavit of Sh. S Vaishnavi, Executive, Legal has been filed in evidence on behalf of OP No.2.
Written submissions have been filed on behalf of the OP-2.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the complainant. No one appeared on behalf of the OP-2 to advance oral arguments despite opportunity given in this behalf.
We have also very carefully gone through the file.
Complainant has filed the copy of the SBC Card Protection Plan as Annexure-1. Complainant has filed copies of credit card statements as Annexure-2 which shows that on 28.05.13 an amount of Rs.1,54,303/-, Rs.33,000/- and Rs.29454/- had been debited from complainant’s three credit cards. The complainant has filed copy of the FIR dated 28.05.13 as Annexure-3. The complainant has filed copies of email sent by the complainant to the OP No.1 as Annexure C-4. Complainant has filed copy of the letter dated 08.10.13 as Annexure-5 whereby the complainant asked the OP to No.1 to settle the claim. The complainant has filed the copy of the terms and condition of the card protection membership as Annexure-6. The OP has filed the copy report of Accurate Investigators & Recovery dated 10.10.13 as Annexure-A. The photographs have been by the OP as Annexure-B (Colly).
As stated hereinabove, the averments made by the OP in the reply that the reported fraudulent transaction was done by the complainant himself alongwith one lady appearing in the photographs. The complainant has not filed his photograph as stated in the complaint. The dispute raised by the parties cannot be decided in a summary manner. Because it has to be decided on merits whether or not the Complainant has done the alleged transaction and, if so, to what effect?. Therefore, the parties are required to lead oral as well as documentary evidence, which would imply the cross-examination of each other witnesses.
The question of forgery, cheating and misappropriation cannot be decided in the summary procedure as provided in the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The matter requires thorough probe and, therefore, cannot be decided by this Forum.
In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 03.11.18
