Maharashtra

StateCommission

A/04/256

M/s. Padma Metal Industries Pvt. Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Harshad H. Trivedi

06 Feb 2013

ORDER

BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
 
First Appeal No. A/04/256
(Arisen out of Order Dated 24/06/2003 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/00/113 of District DCF, South Mumbai)
 
1. M/s. Padma Metal Industries Pvt. Limited
Office at 29, Nakhoda Street, 4th floor, Mumbai 400 003.
Mumbai
Maharashtra
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Office at Moti Mahal, 6th floor, J. T. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 003.
Mumbai
Maharashtra
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
 HON'BLE MR. Narendra Kawde MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
Mr.S.N.Chautale-proxy advocate for Mr.H.H.Trivedi-Advocate
......for the Appellant
 
Mr.A.S.Vidyarthi-Advocate
......for the Respondent
ORDER

ORAL ORDER

Per Hon’ble Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member

          This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 24/06/2003 passed in consumer complaint no.113/2000, M/s.Padma Metals Industries Pvt.Ltd. v/s. M/s.New India Assurance Co.Ltd. by South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.

          It is a case of arbitrarily repudiating the insurance claim and the consumer complaint stood dismissed on the ground that on the date of accident of the vehicle, which occurred on 23/10/1998, there was no insurance cover and the policy earlier taken was already lapsed and not renewed.

          Heard Mr.S.N.Chautale-proxy advocate for Mr.H.H.Trivedi-Advocate for the appellant and Mr.A.S.Vidyarthi-Advocate for the respondent.

          The short question that arises for our consideration is as to whether the renewal premium cheque which according to the appellant/complainant sent on 04/05/1998 was received by the Insurance Company or not. The Insurance Company categorically denied having received any such cheque or communication and they also communicated same to the complainant by their letter dated 24/11/1998.  Ld.counsel appearing for the appellant/ complainant invited our attention to the rubber stamp in token of the acknowledgement having received communication dated 04/05/1998 of the Insurance Company, but this particular rubber stamp and the signature thereon is denied by the Insurance Company.  Under these circumstances, it is for the complainant to establish that the above referred communication along with the premium cheque was delivered to the Insurance Company and was received by them.  The onus thereof is not discharged by the complainant.  Under the circumstances, since on the date of accident, the policy was not at all existing covering the risk of the accident involved vehicle, the conclusion reached and the observations made by the forum cannot be faulted with. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-

                                      ORDER

Appeal stands dismissed.

In the given circumstances, both the parties to bear their own costs.

 

Pronounced on 6th February, 2013.

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE Mr. S.R. Khanzode]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar]
Member
 
[HON'BLE MR. Narendra Kawde]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.