Date   : 25.06.2013

Per Mr.S.M.Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member.

1.       This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and order dated 5.6.2012 passed by District Forum,Beed partly allowing consumer complaint No.120/2011 directing appellant/org.opponent No.1 insurance company to pay to complainant/respondent amount of Rs.1,25,000/- with 9% p.a. interest and further compensation  of Rs.5000/- and Rs.5000/- more towards cost of the proceedings.

(For the sake of brevity the appellant is hereinafter referred as "opponent insurance company" and respondent Madhusudhan &  other as complainant and respondent No.2 as "opponent No.2")

2.       With the consent of learned counsel  for both sides we have decided to dispose of this appeal at the stage of hearing before admission.

3.       The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:

Complainant Madhusudhan is owner of Maruti Swift car bearing registration No.MH-23R-900. On 26.9.2010 the vehicle was insured with opponent insurance company through its agent opponent No.2 Shri.Uday Bhonjal and on the same day paid amount of premium Rs.7500/-. On receipt of amount of premium the opponent No.2 issued cover note.  Thereafter on 20.3.2011 the vehicle met with an accident and it was damaged to tune of Rs.1,25,000/-.  He got his vehicle repaired and submitted the insurance claim with the opponent insurance company. However, by letter dated 28.4.2011, opponent insurance company repudiated his claim informing him that the vehicle was not insured with it. Therefore complainant has made consumer complaint claiming amount of insurance of Rs.1,25,000/- with 18% interest and further compensation of Rs.60,000/- alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponent causing mental and physical harassment and Rs.15,000/- more towards cost of the proceedings.

4.       Opponent No.1 by its written version resisted the complaint contending inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable as complainant`s vehicle was not insured with it. Further it is contended that District Forum Beed has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is submitted that a book containing cover note forms was given to its agent opponent No.2 and he lost the same. Intimation to that effect was also given to the Police Station Beed and Aurangabad. It is contended that complainant obtained the form of cover note which was lost and by preparing cover note filed false complaint etc.  It is submitted to dismiss the complaint.

5.       Opponent No.2 though served with notice did not appear and therefore he was proceeded exparte. 

6.       On hearing both sides and considering documents on record the Forum held that it has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the cover note was issued at Beed by opponent No.2. Further it is held that the vehicle was insured with opponent No.1 through its agent opponent No.2 and when the vehicle met with an accident insurance policy  was in force and therefore opponent No.1 insurance company is liable to pay insurance claim.  It is also held that opponent No.1 insurance company committed deficiency in service repudiating the claim etc.  In keeping with these findings the Forum partly allowed the complaint as noted above.

7.       Feeling aggrieved by that judgment and order opponent insurance company has preferred this appeal.

8.       We heard learned counsel  for both sides at length, perused the copy of impugned judgment and order and copies of complaint, written version , cover note and copies of other documents. It is submitted by Shri.R.H.Dahat learned counsel for the opponent insurance company that the vehicle in question was never insured with the opponent insurance company. According to him neither cover note which is produced by complainant nor insurance policy was issued though it is alleged by complainant.  It is submitted that a book containing blank cover note forms was handed over to opponent No.2 shri.Uday Bhonjal who was working as a agent for opponent No.1 insurance company and said agent lost the book.  It is submitted that intimation to that effect was also given to the Police Station, Beed as well as Aurangabad in the month of December 2010 itself i.e. before alleged accident. It is submitted that the complainant got prepared it by obtaining blank form of cover note from the book which was lost and on the basis of fake cover note filed the complaint.  It is submitted that opponent insurance company never received amount of premium as alleged by the complainant.  In support of this submission he has also filed the affidavit of opponent No.2 Shri.Uday Bhonjal. 

9.       Per contra, Mr.C.V.Dharurkar, learned counsel  for complainant denied and submitted that complainant had insured his vehicle with opponent No.1 insurance company through it`s agent opponent No.2 Shri.Uday Bhonjal.  It is further submitted that opponent No.2 Shri.Uday Bhonjal received amount of premium and issued the cover note. However,  opponent No.1 insurance company has not issued the policy  though it was required to issue within 60 days.  It is submitted that on 20.3.2011 his vehicle met with an accident and damaged to the tune of Rs.1,25,000/-.  Though insurance policy  was in force and though complainant submitted insurance claim, opponent insurance company falsely repudiated his claim etc. It is submitted that the Forum considered all these facts and rightly partly allowed the consumer complaint. Thus, he has supported the impugned judgment and order.

10.     On perusal of copy of cover note we find much force in submission of Mr.C.V.Dharurkar learned counsel for the complainant because this cover note bears seal of the opponent No.1 and also signature of authorized signatory. It is vehemently contended by learned counsel  for opponent insurance company that opponent insurance company that  the book which was lost by opponent No.2 was containing blank forms of the cover note having seal & signature etc. But we find no force in this submission, because no insurance company or its authorized signatory will issue such blank forms with signature and seal.

11.     Moreover, it is pertinent to note that appellant is being a practicing lawyer and he is the owner of the vehicle, it cannot be accepted that his vehicle was not insured and after the accident he manipulated to obtain the blank form of cover note so as to make insurance claim. However,  it is submitted by Shri.Dahat learned counsel  for the appellant that intimation was given to Police Station about the loss of cover note book.  He has also produced the copy of intimation acknowledgment issued by concerned Police from Beed and Aurangabad. But on perusal of copy of this certificate it creates doubt as to whether any book containing forms of cover note was lost and intimation was given prior to the accident in question. Because the copy of intimation given to Police Station, Aurangabad reflects that some book was lost on 18.11.2010 whereas intimation which was given to Police Station Beed which reflects date as 24.11.2010. Thus on any count the defense of the opponent insurance company is being not consistent and reliable, cannot be accepted.

12.     Apart from the above facts, it is submitted by Shri.Dahat learned counsel  for the opponent insurance company that the District Forum Beed has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as there is no branch office of opponent No.1 insurance company at Beed and further no transaction took place at Beed.  Further according to him accident is also occurred in Jalna District.  But we find no force in this submission, because from the cover note it manifests that complainant who is from Beed obtained insurance through opponent No.2 agent of the opponent No.1 at Beed. Opponent No.2 Shri.Uday Bhonjal also resides at Beed. 

13.     Considering all the above facts and evidence on record District Forum has rightly partly allowed the consumer complaint.  We find no error or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order.  Hence no interference is warranted.

14.     In the result, appeal is being devoid of any merit is liable to be summarily dismissed.  Hence the following order.

                                                ORDER

1.    Appeal is dismissed.

2.    No order as to cost.

3.    Copies of the judgment and order be supplied to both the parties.

Pronounced and dictated

in the open court on dt.25.06.2013.