JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          The complainant purchased a vehicle from the respondent No.2 Vicon Automobiles (I) Pvt. Ltd., running a showroom under the name and style of M/s Akshya Toyota.  The complainant also delivered a cheque of Rs.21,540/- in the name of Respondent No.1 Iffco Tokio as the premium for insurance of the said vehicle.  The cheque was allegedly filled by the agent of the insurer.  There was an overwriting on the cheque issued by the complainant, which he had duly signed.  The cheque was drawn on State Bank of India, P.O. Bhilai, Durg, M.P.  The cheque however, was dishonoured on account of the aforesaid overwriting.  The policy was therefore, cancelled by the respondent No.1 vide its letter dated 27.4.2015. The vehicle in the meanwhile met with an accident on 12.4.2015.    Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned district Forum by way of a consumer complaint, impleading both, the insurer as well as the car dealer as the opposite parties in the complaint.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the insurer, primarily on the ground that the cheque given by the complainant towards premium of the insurance policy having been dishonoured, the vehicle was not insured on the date it met with an accident.  The respondent No.1 denied the allegation that the cheque given by the complainant was filled up by its agent.

3.      Vide its order dated 12.4.2016, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.  Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal.  The said appeal also having been dismissed, he is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition. 

4.      Though, the complainant / petitioner alleged that the cheque given by him towards premium of the insurance policy was filled by the agent of the insurer, no credible evidence to prove the said averment, which was otherwise denied by the insurer was produced.  Even, the name of the alleged agent was not disclosed in the complaint.  Had the name of the agent been disclosed, it would have been possible for the insurer to produce the said agent as a witness.  In the absence of such particulars, the bald plea taken by the complainant cannot be accepted, particularly when it has been rejected by both the fora below.

5.      Even otherwise, it was the duty of the complainant to give a cheque which would not be dishonoured by his bank.  The complainant having issued a cheque with overwriting in the amount given in figures has only himself to blame if the cheque was not honoured by his bank on account of the aforesaid alteration.  As far as the insurer is concerned, since the cheque was dishonoured, it did not receive the premium and consequently, there was no valid insurance of the vehicle on the date it met with an accident.  The concurrent view taken by the fora below therefore, does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.  The revision petition, being devoid of any merit, is therefore, dismissed, with no order as to costs.