Haryana

Karnal

105/2012

Kaushal S/o Uggar Sain - Complainant(s)

Versus

Universal Sompo General Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

R.K. Arora

31 Oct 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.105 of 2012

                                                          Date of instt.17.02.2012

                                                          Date of decision: 17.03.2015

 

Kaushal son of Shri Uggar Sain resident of Gali No.1, Shiv colony, Karnal.

                                                                  ……..Complainant.

                   Vs.

 

1.Universal Sompo General InsuranceCompany Ltd. Registered Office 201-208, Crystal Plaza, Opposite Infiniti Mall, Link Road, Andheri West, Mumbai 400058 Second Address through its Divisional Manager, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula.

                                                                  …..Opposite Party.

 

                                      Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                                      Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.Subhash Goyal……..President.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma……Member.

 

 

 

Present:-      Sh.R.K.Arora  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Y.P.Arora Advocate for the OP.

ORDER

 

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the grounds that the complainant obtained an Insurance policy for his Scorpio  SLX  bearing registration No. HR-12-J-4747 for the period w.e.f. 29.7.2009 to 28.7.2010 vide cover note bearing No. 036769 dated 29.7.2009 through the agent of the OP.  It has been further alleged that agent of the OP  played a fraud with the complainant and has issued a cheque in the sum of Rs.2895/- on behalf of the complainant but in fact the complainant had paid the cash amount of Rs.3095/- on account of premium of the said Insurance policy which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OP. Thus, alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP and has sought compensation and litigation expenses. The complainant has also tendered his affidavit in evidence alongwith, copy of the insurance cover Ex.C2 and photo copy of cheque   Ex. C3.

 

2.                 On notice the OP appeared and filed its written statement  raising the preliminary objections that the complainant was not a consumer qua the OP; that complainant was estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and to try the present complaint.

 

                   On merits, it was contended that  the OP received a cheque of Rs.2895/- against the premium of vehicle No. HR012J-4747 and the company presented the same in its account and received the cheque back dishonored. Therefore, the company cancelled the policy and intimated the owner vide letter dated 22.8.2009.Thus the vehicle was not insured at the time of alleged accident. Therefore, the insurance company was not liable to pay any compensation or claim to anybody and the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer qua the OP. It was thus contended that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the OP and dismissal of the complaint has been sought.

 

3.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

4.                 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned  counsel for the parties, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP on the ground that he obtained the insurance policy for the period w.e.f  29.7.2009 to 28.10.2010 and  paid Rs.3095/- through agent of the OP  who issued the cover note bearing No.036769  dated 29.7.2009 but the said  agent has played a fraud with the complainant and had issued a cheque in the sum of Rs.2895/-  towards the payment of insurance premium despite the fact that the complainant  had paid a cash amount of Rs.3095/-  which was dishonored.

 

5.                 However, as per the contention of the OP, the cheque issued by the complainant was dishonored and the due intimation was given to the complainant and in the absence of payment of insurance premium, on account of dishonor of cheque, there was no binding contract between the parties and the complainant was not a consumer.

 

                    It was also argued that Hon, ble  Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karnal  has  decided the MACT case bearing No.278 of 2010 on 14.3.2011 and in the said case also it has been observed that the cheque of insurance premium was dishonored and intimation regarding the said dishonoring of the cheque has been duly sent to the insured-now complainant and as such in view of the said judgment of the MACT dated 14.3.2011, the complaint was liable to be dismissed.

 

6.                 Therefore, after going through the evidence and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties,  it emerges that the complainant  practically wants to challenge the findings recorded by the Hon,ble MACT, Karnal  in its judgment dated 14.3.2011, the copy of which has been placed on the file as Ex.O1. The Hon,ble MACT, Karnal in its judgment dated 14.3.2011, has categorically held  that cheque issued by the registered owner  in favour of the insurance company was  dishonored and no liability can be fastened upon the insurance company  to indemnify  the insured as the vehicle was not insured with the insurance company at the time of accident in question.  The Hon,ble Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karnal has also observed that intimation regarding the dishonoring of the cheque was also sent through courier and has observed that the respondent no.1 and 2 i.e.  Driver and registered owner were only responsible to pay the compensation to the complainant.  Therefore, when the MACT, Karnal has categorically held the complainant responsible to indemnify the loss and as such in view of the judgment of the Hon,ble Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karnal, the present complaint was  not maintainable before this Forum and remedy if any  lies before the Hon,ble High Court.

 

7.                For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and as such the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

Dated 17.03.2015                                                  (Subhash Goyal)

                                                                                President,

District Consumer Disputes  

Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member

 

 

Present:-      Sh.R.K.Arora  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Y.P.Arora Advocate for the OP.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

Dated 17.03.2015                                                  (Subhash Goyal)

                                                                                President,

District Consumer Disputes  

Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member