Haryana

Karnal

CC/191/2015

Lokesh Verma S/o Suresh Kumar Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Vikram Singh

04 Oct 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                              Complaint No. 191 of 2015

                                                             Date of instt. 18.08.2015

                                                               Date of decision:4.10.2016

 

Lokesh Verma son of Suresh Kumar Verma resident of House no.477, Azad Nagar, near Nirankari Bhawan, Karnal.

 

                                                                         ……..Complainant.

                                                Versus

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. having its Divisional office at Karnal through its Divisional Manage, Karnal.

                                                                                 …………Opposite Party.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Shri Vikram Singh Advocate for complainant.

                    Shri Ravinder Chaudhary Advocate for opposite party.

                                     

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986, on the averments that he purchased one iphone-6(Apple) bearing IMEI no.354428064316909 from M/s Nagpal Sales Corporation, Karnal on 29.10.2014, for an amount of Rs.53500/-. On the same day, he got insured the said mobile phone with opposite party through dealer, vide policy no.670302461324000000008 valid for the period of 29.10.2014 to 28.10.2015. Unfortunately, on 13.3.2015 the said mobile was snatched from him by someone in the area of Police Station Amar Colony, Delhi. First Information Report no.333 dated 13.3.2013 was lodged regarding the said incident. Thereafter, he lodged claim with the opposite party for payment of compensation, vide claim ID no.190315-1538088 and completed all the formalities. However, the opposite party vide letter dated 6.6.2015 repudiated the claim on lame excuse “Claimant’s signature mismatch (forged) in claim document”.  Such act and conduct on the part of the opposite party amounted to deficiency in service due to which he suffered mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite party, who put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his own acts and conduct; that the complaint is manipulated and malafide; that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint and that the voluminous evidence is required for deciding the matter, therefore, civil court has only jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.

                   On merits, the factum of insuring the mobile phone of the complainant has not been disputed. It has been submitted that Claimant’s signature mismatch (forged) in claim document, therefore, under the exclusion clause, the claim was not payable and accordingly the claim was rightly repudiated, vide letter dated 6.6.2015. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex. C1 and documents Ex.C2 to C8 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite party, affidavit of Siri Ram Senior Divisional Manager Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R10 have been tendered.

5.                 We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                There is no dispute between the parties regarding the fact that the iphone of the complainant was insured by opposite party for a period of 29.10.2014 to 28.10.2015. During subsistence of the policy, the same was snatched by some person from the complainant and First Information Report no.333 dated 13.3.2013 was registered in Police Station Amar Colony, Delhi regarding the said incident. The complainant lodged claim with the opposite party, but his claim was repudiated on the sole ground that the Claimant’s signature mismatch (forged) in claim document.

7.                Learned counsel for the opposite party laid emphasis on the contention that as per the terms of the policy, the copy of which is Ex.R10, insurer is not liable for the loss if the documents are found tampered or there is  non-disclosure of material facts, fraud/misrepresentation. The signature of the complainant on the claim document did not match, therefore, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated.

8.                The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite party is not tenable in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case. A perusal of the copy of the claim form Ex.R4 shows that the same was signed by the complainant. Comparison of his signature on the same with his signatures on the complaint, affidavit and power of attorney, from naked eyes makes it quite clear that there is no difference in the signatures and the same tally with each other. There is no marked difference in the signatures as Ex.R5 and Ex.R6 with the signatures on claim form, complaint, affidavit and power of attorney. The flow of writing and formation of letters is same in all the signatures. Even, otherwise, the opposite party has not produced any opinion of any hand writing expert that signature of the complainant on the claim form did not tally with the signature on the policy or any other document submitted by him to the opposite party at the time of obtaining the policy. Looking into all such facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation in concluding that the order of the opposite party repudiating

 the claim of the complainant was neither legal nor justified. Therefore, repudiation of the claim amounted to deficiency in service.

9.                As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.53,500/- as insured amount to the complainant  alongwith interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. We further direct the opposite party to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 04.10.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member