Delhi

StateCommission

FA/13/374

ICICI BANK LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PRIYSMUADS - Opp.Party(s)

24 Mar 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

Date of Decision: 24.03.2017

 

 

First Appeal No.374/2013

 

 

ICICI Bank Limited

Plot No.5, Community Centre,

Sector-8, Rohini,

New Delhi-110085.                                                            ….Appellant

 

Versus

 

Ms. Priyamvada Vashishta,

W/o Shri Deep Bhushan Vashishta,

R/o A-160 FF, Saraswati Vihar,

Delhi.                                                                                      ….Respondent

 

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

 

1.Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

  

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1. This is an application filed by the appellant/OP under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC read with Section 13(3B) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for taking on record all the documents as filed by the appellant in appeal particularly with respect to the insurance application form, offer, policy issued and all other connected documents.
2. The aforesaid application has been moved in the aforesaid appeal at the stage of final hearing.
3. It is stated that the policy documents, application form and other relevant documents especially proposal form which is at page 147 of the paper-book are necessary for disposal of the present appeal. It is stated that the earlier A.R. of the appellant/OP Mr. Navin Trivedi who used to coordinate with the counsel before District Forum is no more in service and the said officer could not hand over/brief the concerned counsel properly or due to some inadvertent mistake on the part of the previous counsel, the aforesaid documents could not be placed on record. It is stated that it appears that the aforesaid documents are not on record of the District Forum. It is alleged that the aforesaid documents were executed by the respondent/complainant and are necessary for deciding the real controversy between the parties as such the same be taken on record.
4. The application is opposed by the respondent/complainant by filing a reply. It is stated that the appellant/OP is trying to fill up the lacunas when the matter is at the stage of final hearing. It is stated that in view of the observation of the Ld. District Forum in the impugned order, the aforesaid documents cannot be taken on record.
5. We have considered the submission made.
6. It may be mentioned that the documents for which prayer has been made for taking on record are not annexed with the present application. The application is also not supported with affidavit of any of the official of appellant/OP. The appellant/OP is also not sure whether these documents are on record of the District Forum or not. Further, the policy documents are already there on record of the District Forum.
7. As regards, filing of the proposal form alleged to have been signed by the respondent/complainant, which is at page 147 of the appeal. The stand of the appellant/OP before the Ld. District Form and the observation of the Ld. District Forum are relevant in this regard. The same are reproduced as under:

             

We had pointedly asked the learned counsel for the OP to show us any proposal form which the complainant might have filled up for obtaining the policies in question. The learned counsel conceded that no proposal form was signed by the complainant or her husband. An insurance contract is an ordinary contract of indemnity which can be entered into by the parties by filling up a proposal form. The proposer is the person who is called an offerer whose offer has to be accepted by the insurance company. In the present case, there was no offer made by the complainant or her husband and two policies were issued by ICICI Lombard unilaterally which were later on got cancelled by the complainant.

 

8. In view of the categorical stand of appellant/OP before the Ld. District Forum and specific finding of the Ld. District Forum the alleged proposal form cannot be taken on record. Further no explanation is given as to why such a stand was taken before the Ld. District Forum. The appellant/OP is trying to fill up the lacunas by filing the alleged proposal forum. Accordingly, request made in this regard is rejected.
9. As regards prayer for taking on record the application form, we may mention that it has not been specified in the application as to which application form the appellant/OP wants to place on record. Application is vaguely drafted.  The details of the alleged application form are not given.
10. In these circumstances, request of the appellant/OP for placing on record the application form and the proposal form at page 147 of the paperbook stands rejected.
11. Application stands disposed of accordingly.
12. Re-list on 29.05.2017 for final hearing.
13. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge.

 

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member