Punjab

StateCommission

A/11/1377

Subhash Chander Saraf - Complainant(s)

Versus

Future General India Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Maninder Singh

04 Mar 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                                               PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                             First Appeal No.1377 OF 2011

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 12.09.2011

                                                          Date of Decision :  04.03.2015

 

Subhash Chander Saraf son of Sh.Surinder Shyam, resident of H.No.706, Sector 39, Ludhiana 141010

 

                                                          …..Appellant/Complainant        

                                      Versus

Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd., Sandhu Towers, 3rd Floor, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.

 

 

                                                          ….Respondent/Opposite party

         

First Appeal against order dated 17.05.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member.    

Present:-

 

          For the appellant              :         Sh.Maninder Singh, Advocate

          For the respondent :         Sh.Rajiv Abhi, Advocate

 

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

                            

J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

                  

           The appellant (the complainant in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondent of this appeal (the opposite party in the complaint), challenging the order dated 17.05.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Ludhiana, dismissing the complaint of the complainant. The instant appeal has been preferred by the complainant now appellant against the same.

2.      The complainant Subhash Chander has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP on the averments that he purchased one car Ford Fiesta from A.B Motors Pvt.Ltd., Ludhiana for Rs.6,45,000/-, vide invoice No.Ldh/853/2009-10 dated 02.09.2009 and got it insured from Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited, vide policy No.FPV/10095782/PI/09/DIPI15 for the period 20.09.2009 to 19.09.2010 against the premium of Rs13960.68 against the insured declared value of Rs.612750.00 of the car. That on 15.09.2010, the complainant was allured by the agent of the OP and he insured the car with the OP from 20.9.2010 to 19.9.2011, vide cover note No.A7465903 against premium of Rs.9400/-, clearing stating  the year of the manufacture of the car as 2009. The OP issued policy no.2010-V0891672-FPV dated 18.09.2010 showing manufacturing year of the car as 2008 instead of 2009 and the insured value of the car was shown as 3,40,000/- by decreasing it by 45% value insured thereof. The complainant wrote protest letter dated 28.09.2010 to the OP to refund the premium of Rs.9400/- to him. The complainant again wrote another letter dated 4.10.2010 for issuing fresh policy of Rs.5,50,000/-recording year of manufacture of the car as 2009 and not 2008. That the representative took another amount of Rs.1000/- in cash, as additional premium from complainant and assured to issue new policy of Rs.5,50,000/- and he also took photo of the car. That the policy was not issued to the complainant despite charging of Rs.10400/-. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP directing it to refund the amount of Rs.10400/- with interest @18% p.a, besides compensation of Rs.5000/- and Rs.2000/- as costs of litigation.

3.      Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant vehemently. It was averred in the preliminary objections in the written reply that complaint is barred under Section 26 of the Act. It was further pleaded that the complainant filled the proposal form himself for insurance of his above car from 20.9.2010 to 19.9.2011 for obtaining insurance thereof recording the year of manufacturing of car as 2008. The policy was supplied on the very basis of the proposal form of the complainant. That even complainant supplied the copy of the previous cover note of the said car with Bharti AXA General Insurance for the period from 20.9.2010 to 19.9.2011 recording the year of the manufacturing as 2008 of the car and the insured sum Rs.4,06,127/- only. That on the basis of the proposal form submitted by the complainant, cover note was accordingly issued and insuring the value of his car as Rs.3,40,000/-, vide cover note No.A7465903, which is duly signed by the complainant. That on the request of the complainant, vide letter dated 04.10.2010 for issuing fresh insurance of the vehicle with insurance amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- in place of Rs.3,40,000/- and thereby corrected the year of manufacturing from 2008 to 2009. The OP made endorsement in the policy of 06.10.2010  and issued endorsement for the insurance policy, which was valid from 20.9.2010 to 19.09.2010. On the payment of the additional premium of Rs. 5174/-, copy of endorsement was issued and it was made clear in the endorsement that sum insured was enhanced by Rs.2,10,000/- making total sum insured to Rs.5,50,000/-. The complaint has been resisted even on merits on the above grounds and OP prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.   

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence  affidavit of complainant Ex.CW-1/A, copy of retail invoice Ex.C-1, copy of policy information Ex.C-2, copies of certificate of Insurance and Schedule Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5, copy of Future Secure Motor Insurance Ex.C-6, copy of premium receipt Ex.C-7, copy of Future Secure Private Car-Comprehensive Policy, copy of Standard Form for Private Car Package Policy Ex.C-9, copy of letter dated 8.9.10 from complainant to OP Ex.C-10, copy of letter dated 4.10.2010 Ex.C-11, copy of letter dated 6.10.2010 Ex.C-12, copy of Motor Vehicle Insurance Proposal and Cover-note Ex.C-13, copy of policy information Ex.C-14, copies of Certificate of Insurance and Schedule New Business Original Ex.C-15 to Ex.C-17, copy of R.C Ex.C-18, copy of letter regarding RTI Ex.C-19, copy of letter from Sr.Post Office, Ludhiana to CPIO cum Sr.Postmaster Ex.C-20, copy of letter from Sr.Postmaster, Ludhiana to complainant Ex.C-21, copy of Motor Vehicle Insurance Cover Note Ex.C-22, copy of postal receipt Ex.C-23, copy of Department of Posts India Ex.C-24. As against it, OP tendered affidavit of Ved Vyas Tripathi, Senior Executive (Legal) Ex.RW-1/A, copy of Future Secure Private Car Ex.R-1, copy of letter dated 4.10.2010 Ex.R-2, copy of certificate of Insurance-cum-policy schedule Ex.R-3, copy of Front Desk Checklist Ex.R-4, copy of Cover Note Ex.R-5, copy of Motor Vehicle Insurance Cover Note Ex.R-6, copy of proposal form Ex.R-7, copy of insured persons list Ex.R-8. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum, Ludhiana dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 17.5.2011. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Ludhiana dated 17.5.2011, the complainant now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. We have carefully examined the pleadings of the complainant and OP on the record as well as the affidavits placed by them in support of their pleadings on the record. Ex.C-1 is retail invoice as the purchase value of the vehicle as Rs.6,45,000/- and year of manufacturing as September 2009 and it was purchased from M/s A.B Motors Pvt.Ltd Ludhiana, Ex.C-2 total payable interest in favour of the complainant of the above car, Ex.C-3 is recording the year of manufacturing of the car as 2009, which is Certificate of Insurer and Schedule New Business Original. Similarly, documents Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-24 have been duly considered by us on the record. To refute this evidence, the OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Ved Vyas Tripathi, Senior Executive (Legal) of the OP, vide Ex.RW-1/A on the record. He stated that on the basis of the proposal form filled by the insured, the insurance policy was issued to him recording the year of manufacturing of the car as 2008 itself by the complainant, as mentioned in the proposal form by the insured.  That even M/s Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Ltd recorded the manufacturing year of the car as 2008 and  this document was produced by the complainant at the time of the insurance of the car with the OP. We find that policy document Ex.R-3 is on the record, the year of manufacturing is recorded as 2008 in it. Ex.R-4 may also be read in continuation thereof. Ex.R-5 is cover note of the policy, wherein the year of the manufacturing is 2008, the digit 8 has been overwritten in Ex.R-5. In Ex.R-6 year of manufacturing of car is recorded as 2008 of this car. Ex.R-7 is the proposal form of the complainant, which was filled by the complainant himself and is the foundation of the case. The complainant himself stated the year of the manufacturing of the car as 2008 in the proposal form. The complainant approached the OP for recording the year 2009 and thereby to enhance the insured value of the car. The additional premium paid by the complainant is Ex.R-1 to this effect on the record. Complainant wrote letter to this effect, vide Ex.R-2 is on the record. The necessary endorsement of receiving the additional premium amount of the complainant regarding year of manufacturing of the car as 2009 was issued by the OP to the complainant, which is part of the main insurance policy. The car was insured for the value of Rs.5,50,000/- by charging additional premium from the complainant, vide Ex.R-1 on the record. The endorsement was duly issued by the OP in this regard. This endorsement was issued, vide Ex.R-8 on 08.10.2010. The complainant sent the letter to the OP through speed post and this speed post receipt is dated 07.10.2010, vide Ex.C-12 on the record. There is no question of receipt of the letter of the complainant immediately on the same day because the OP issued the endorsement by charging the additional premium from the complainant, vide entry Ex.R-8 on the record. We are further fortified in this regard by the fact that even in the previous insurance policy of the car produced by the complainant himself with the OP, the manufacturing year was recorded as 2008 in it and not 2009.

6.      The submission of the counsel for the complainant is that forgery has been done by the OP in this case. On the face of it, we do not find any such substance in the contention of the complainant. Even the Apex Court has ruled in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd…Versus… Munimahesh Patel reported in IV (2006) CPJ 1(SC) that " complex factual position requires matter to be examined by appropriate court of law and not by commission. Matter involved adjudication of issues involving disputed factual questions, in the matter of wrong declaration of nature of occupation the Consumer Fora should not have decided as the complex question of facts and law are involved." The Hon'ble National Commission has also held in case titled as R.D Papers Ltd…Versus. New India Assurance Company Limited and Others reported in 1(2004) CPJ 101 (NC) that "allegation of forgery made by complainant, denied by company. Complaint not adjudicable in summary jurisdiction and hence dismissed." Apex Court further held that in case titled as Grasim Industries Ltd  and another Vs.  Agarwal Steels reported in 2009(4) Civil Court Cases 0598 that "a person signs a document, there is presumption to  have signed after reading and understanding the document properly, unless there is proof of force and fraud." On the basis of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above-referred authority, we find that complainant himself signed the proposal form resulting in issuance of the insurance policy recording the year of manufacturing 2008 and even in the previous policy year of 2008 was recorded as manufacturing year of the car, which was produced by the complainant to the OP at the time of insurance of this vehicle. Consequently, the order  of the District Forum calls for no interference in this appeal in our view.

7.      As a result of our above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal and same is hereby dismissed by affirming the order of the District Forum under challenge in this case.

8.       Arguments in this appeal were heard on 02.03.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.

9.      The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                           (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM)

                                                                          MEMBER

 

March 4    2015.                                                             

(ravi)