BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; BHIWANI.
C.C.No.10 of 2018.
Date of Instt.:17.01.2018.
Date of Order: 16.07.2020
Hemant Kumar son of Ganpat Singh resident of Manan Pana, Bhiwani Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
..Complainant.
Versus
1.IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL Insurance Co.Ltd. registered office IFFCO at Sadan C-1, Distt. Centre, Saket New Delhi-110017 through its Managing Director.
2.The Regional Manager, IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL Insurance Co.Ltd. plot No.2, B&C 4th Floor, IFFCO Complex, Sector 28A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
3.Mr.Parshant son of Ramesh Yadav, IFFCO TOKIO, Agent No.ID No.15001295, Chhajju Ram Gali No.1 Meham Road, Vidya Nagar, Bhiwani Tehsil & District Bhiwani, Haryana at present Hira Ki Dhani Opp. Kishan Lal Jalan Hospital, Meham Gate, Bhiwani Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
..Opposite Parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986
Before: Sh. Nagender Singh, President.
Sh. Shriniwas Khundia, Member
Present: Sh.Naveen Tanwar, counsel for the complainant.
Sh.Satender, Proxy counsel for OP Nos. 1 & 2. Sh.Hitesh Khurana, Advocate for OP No.3.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT
Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant is owner of vehicle TATA Safari bearing registration No.HR14C-9163 duly insured with opposite party No.1 for the period from 02.11.2015 to 01.11.2016 vide policy No.94798521 and the premium amount of Rs.15007/- has also been paid by the complainant. Said vehicle was stolen by some unknown persons on 21.09.2016 when it was parked outside the court compound. The complainant searched the same but to no avail. He reported the matter to the police and regarding this FIR No.217 dated 22.09.2016 was registered. Information regarding theft of vehicle was also given to the opposite parties. The complainant submitted the requisite documents with the opposite parties and also visited in the office of opposite parties number of times but his claim was not settled. The complainant also got served legal notice upon the opposite parties but to no avail. The act and conduct of the opposite parties clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
2. On being served, the opposite parties contested the complaint of the complainant by filing replies. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 in their reply have taken several preliminary objections such as cause of action, maintainability, estoppal and suppression of material facts from this Forum etc. It is submitted that the complainant had purchased the policy by paying a sum of Rs.5792.34/- covering the third party risk only and no amount of Rs.15007/- has been paid for the said policy. The complainant had obtained the policy only covering the third party risk and premium thereof has also been made, therefore, the theft claim/Own damage claim does not cover under this policy. The insurance policy produced by the complainant is false and fabricated and the same was not issued by the replying opposite parties. The complainant has neither informed the company nor lodged any claim in respect of the theft of the vehicle on 21.09.2016, therefore, question of submitting of documents does not arise at all. There is no deficiency in service on the part of replying opposite parties. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3. Opposite party No.3 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as locus standi, estoppal, maintainability, cause of action and concealment of material facts from this Forum. It has been submitted that the complainant got insured his vehicle as third party insurance and had paid a sum of Rs.5792.34/- qua policy No.94798521 having validity from 02.11.2015 to 01.11.2016. The policy placed on file by the complainant is false and forged one. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4. The parties have led their evidence in the form of affidavit and documents. The complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C15 and Annexure C15/A and closed the evidence on 14.03.2019 whereas the opposite parties No.1 &2 have tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A and documents Annexure R2 to R3 and closed the evidence on 24.01.2020 whereas the opposite party No.3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and document Annexure R1 and closed the evidence on 30.09.2019.
5. Heard. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsels for opposite parties reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. This fact is not disputed that vehicle in question was insured with the opposite parties No.1 & 2 having validity upto 02.11.2015 to 01.11.2016 as is evident through document Annexure R3. The complainant has come with the plea that he had purchased the comprehensive policy for getting his vehicle insured and paid the premium to the tune of Rs.15007/- but he has not placed any authentic document on the case file to prove that he had purchased comprehensive policy for his vehicle bearing No.HR14C/9163 by paying the premium to the tune of Rs.15007/-. Rather the plea of the opposite parties qua purchasing of third party insurance by paying a sum of Rs.5792.34/- (Annexure R3) is clearly established on the case file. Though the complainant has placed on case file photo copy of insurance policy Annexure C2 in support of his plea that he had paid Rs.15007/- for purchasing of policy for insuring his vehicle bearing registration No.HR14C-9163 but he has failed to produce on the case file original policy before this Forum to support his plea. Since the policy purchased by the complainant was third party policy, therefore, no liability can be fastened upon the insurance company/opposite parties to honour the claim of the complainant. Moreover, the opposite parties have specifically taken the plea that the photo copy of the policy Annexure R2, placed on the case file is forged and fabricated document and cannot be relied. Since this Forum cannot decide the matter qua forgery, therefore, this complaint before this Forum is also not maintainable.
7. Thus, in view of above discussion we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove his case by leading cogent and reliable evidence and even the complaint is also not maintainable before this Forum, therefore we dismiss the present complaint leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: - 16.07.2020
(Shriniwas Khundia) (Nagender Singh)
Member President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
