BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ROPAR
Consumer Complaint No. : 76 of 08.10.2020
Date of decision : 31.08.2022
Ujjal Singh Secretary of the Phool Khurd Multipurpose Cooperative Agriculture Service Society Limited, VPO Phool Khurd, Tehsil & District Rupnagar
......Complainant
Versus
- The Manager Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Limited, Second Floor, SCO No.145-146, Sector 9-C, Madya Marg, Chandigarh
- Rakesh Kumar, Cluster Manager, Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Limited, Second Floor, SCO No.145-146, Sector 9-C, Madya Marg, Chandigarh,
...Opposite Parties
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act
QUORUM
SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT
SMT. RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER
ARGUED BY
Sh. Ujjal Singh, complainant in person
Sh. Amit Gupta, Adv. counsel for O.P No.1
OP No.2 ex-parte
ORDER
SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT
The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the Opposite Parties on the ground that the complainant is serving as a secretary in the Phool Khurd Multipurpose Cooperative Agriculture Service Society Limited, VPO Phool Khurd. In the month of May 2019 agent/representative namely Rajesh Kumar, Cluster Manager the OP NO.2 came at the society office and introduced himself to the complainant. After that, representative of OP1 informed the complainant about their insurance policy benefits which covers building, stock of fertilizers, Pesticides, Insecticides etc., stock of goods, single carrying limit, cash in counter, baggage, public liability. The said Rajesh Kumar OP2 also told him about personal accident insurance cover of Rs.10 Lacs in the said insurance policy for a period of one year. The complainant gives premium amount of Rs.8517/- to the OP2 i.e. Cluster Manager Rajesh Kumar and representative of opposite party issue cover letter in favour of society at that time which is for the period of 21.5.2019 to 20.05.2020 and told him that your policy will be delivered to you within 2-3 working days. The said Rajesh Kumar also gives his visiting card to the complainant. Unfortunately, on 18.8.2019 due to the heavy rainfall flood arises in the canal of Village Khairabad and more than 5 feet water came in the office of the society and in the adjoining villages. All the essential items i.e. DAP 150 bags, Urea 250 Bags, furniture chairs, IFFCO DAP Packets of 1 kg 120 bags. MPK 70 bags, computer CPU, printer were badly damaged with the flood water. The total cost of the all items are of Rs.4,36,950/-. The complainant immediately contacted the representative of OP on his mobile number and told about the damage in the society premises and requested him to visit the society and also make survey of the society. The representative of opposite party had assured the complainant that he will come within 1-2 working days. When the representative of OP had not come within 2 working days then the complainant again called opposit3e party and requested them to visit hte spot and make survey. Again the representative of OP assured him that he was stuck in some urgent work, he will defiantly come within 1-2 working days and at that time the representative of opposite party said the complainant to send the photographs of the society on his phone. The complainant had sent the photographs of the society including damaged materials to the opposite party. It is further alleged that when the complainant again called the opposite party after given times period then opposite party flatly refused to give the claim to the complainant with no reason. When the complainant asked opposite party to give him reason that whey they said that then the representative of opposite party had disconnected the call of the complainant. After that the complainant also visited office of the opposite party i.e. Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Limited many times to make the payment of the claim but till date no payment was sent by opposite party into the account of the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service, the complainant sought the following relief against the Ops:-
- To pay the claim of Rs.4,3,950/- along with interest @ 12.50% per annum.
- Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit may also be granted, in the interest of justice.
2. In reply, the Ops No.1 & 2 has filed written reply stating therein hat name of the company has been changed in the records of registrar of companies w.e.f. 03.04.20128 as Liberty General Insurance Limited instead of Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Limited. The complainant be accordingly directed to carry out the necessary changes. The complainant filed by the complainant against Ops is false, frivolous and vexatious and far away from the truth and the same is not maintainable. The complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands. There is no contractual relationship between the complainant and Ops. The Ops had issued office package insurance policy in favour of Phool Khurd MPCASS limited for hte period from 21.05.2018 to 20.05.2019 subject to certain terms, conditions and exclusions under the policy. Rest of allegations made by the complainant against the Ops have been denied and prayed for dismissal the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the parties have tendered certain documents in support of their version and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the record file, carefully and minutely.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the insurance company for the loss arisen on 18-8-2020 due to heavy rainfall and flood due to which office of the complainant society came under 5' of water causing the loss to the tune of Rs. 4,36,950/- and the insurance company has failed to pay the said claim inspite of the fact that all the formalities are completed. That the insurance company has disputed the said claim on the ground that there is contractual relation between complainant and the opposite party as no insurance policy claimed by the complainant covering the society from the period 21-5-2019 to 20-5-2020 was ever issued by the opposite eparty and thus the claim of the complainant is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. The controversy of the parties could be reduced to following:-
- Whether opposite party has issued policy w.e.f. 21-5-2019 to 20-5-2020 in favour of the complainant or not.
6. That in this case, the opposite party has pleaded that no original insurance policy existence of which is in dispute has been produced by the complainant and the document claimed to be the policy is a false and fabricated document. Further, it was submitted by the opposite party that:
- The document mentions the name of the opponents as Liberty Videcon General Insurance Co. Ltd whereas as already mention ed herein above, the name of the company was changed to Liberty General Insurance Limited wef 03-04-2018.
- The cheque number in the initial para of the confirmation of cover letter is blank.
- The date of issue of cheque is also left blank in the cover letter.
- Cover letter is not signed by the authorized signatory and does not bear the stamp of the company.
All these discrepancies to to show that the document produced before the Commission is a made-up document. Complainant is claiming benefit of insurance based on a document that is not authenticated. The complainant has not paid any premium to this opposite party to cover the risk as alleged and no contract of insurance exists between the parties covering the date of loss as alleged. The complainant may be directed to reveal the source from which the document is obtained and the manner of payment of premium.
7. Thus from the above, it is clear that authenticity of the document is in dispute and both the parties are required to lead voluminous evidence which is not possible under the summary jurisdiction of this court as the subject matter involves adjudication of fraud and forgery which are beyond the scope of the proceedings under Consumer Protection Act. The proper Forum for the present complaint would be civil court of appropriate jurisdiction and keeping in view the judgements of the National Commission in Mittal Education Society Vs. Indian Overseas Bank, reported in 2017, SCC online, NCDRC 1862, Ummarpur Rice Mills Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd, 2019 SCC online 1630, wherein it has been held by the National Commission that:
8. From the above judgments, it is brought out that complaint case where forgery and fraud has been alleged by one party against the other party and the same is denied by the other party cannot be decided in a summary procedure under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because it requires lot of voluminous evidence to be produced by both the parties in support of their assertions, which is not possible in the summary proceedings. Proper forum for adjudication of such complaints is only the Civil Court having proper jurisdiction.
9. In view of our above discussion, we feel that this complaint cannot be decided under the summary procedure laid down in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as it would require voluminous evidence to be produced by both the parties in support of their assertions. Accordingly, the present stands dismissed. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED (RANJIT SINGH)
Dated.31.08.2022 PRESIDENT
(RANVIR KAUR)
MEMBER
