STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                       U.T., CHANDIGARH

                                       (Appeal No.151 of 2010)

                                                                   Date of Institution:05.04.2010

                                                                   Date of Decision  :21.03.2011

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.139-140, Sector 8 C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Manager Legal Sh.Pramanpreet Singh Gujaral. 

                                                                                      ……Appellant.

                                                Versus

Sh. Vikar Ahmad son of Sh. Abdul Wahid, r/o H.No.708/19, Sector 26, B. D. Complex, Chandigarh.

                                                                ....Respondent.

BEFORE:          HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                    S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:            Sh. Yogesh Saini, Advocate for the appellant.

                    Sh. G.S.Verma,  Advocate for respondent.

PER  JAGROOP  SINGH  MAHAL, MEMBER.

                    This appeal under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the order dated 9.3.2010 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed and the OP/Appellant was directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5 lacs as the Insured Declared Value (IDV); Rs.30,000/- as compensation for causing harassment, agony and pain and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. The order was directed to be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which the OP was made liable to pay the aforesaid amount along with penal interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 31.12.2008 till the date of realization.

2.                 Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he got his Mahindra Scorpio insured from OP No.3, an agent of OPs No. 1 and 2 after paying the requisite premium of Rs.24,800/- for the period from 29.11.2007 to 28.11.2008. It was averred that OP No.3 issued an insurance cover note wherein the market value of the vehicle was assessed at Rs.5,50,000/-. It was next averred that on 7.4.2008, the vehicle of the complainant was stolen while it was parked in the parking area of Swastik Vihar, Delhi at about 10.45 PM and despite making best efforts, the same was not found. F.I.R. bearing No.180 dated 9.4.2008 was also got registered by the complainant with Police Station Preet Vihar and separate intimation was also given to the OPs. All the requisite documents in support of his claim were also furnished by the complainant to the OPs, who did not pass his claim and were dilly-dallying the matter on one pretext or the other. It was next averred that the complainant served a legal notice upon the OPs but to no avail. Alleging the aforesaid act of OPs as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, the complainant filed the present complaint before the learned District Forum.

3.                     OPs No.1 and 2 in their joint reply pleaded that the cover note issued to the complainant was forged and fake. It was further pleaded that the claim of the complainant was not maintainable either on facts or under law as the answering OPs had no liability for a document, which was forged, false and fabricated. OPs denied the receipt of any legal notice from the complainant, as alleged in the complaint. Pleaded no deficiency in service on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                     OP No.3 did not appear despite due service of notice and thus, he was proceeded against exparte by the learned District Forum.

5.                 The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 

6.                 After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint vide the impugned order dated 9.3.2010 as already mentioned in the opening para of the judgment.

7.                 The OP has challenged the impugned order through this appeal.

8.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

9.                 The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned District Forum had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint and therefore, the order passed by it is bad in law. He referred to Para No.3 of the complaint, which shows that the alleged insurance cover was obtained by the complainant vide Annexure C-2 from Delhi. The policy (Annexure C-2) was issued from Pune. The vehicle, which was allegedly insured, was stolen from Delhi. No part of cause of action has, therefore, accrued within the jurisdiction of District Fora, Chandigarh. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the OPs have a branch office at Chandigarh and therefore, the District Fora, Chandigarh would have the jurisdiction. We do not find any merit in this argument in view of the authority of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance, Company Limited, 2010 (1) CPC 379 (SC). The order passed by the learned District Forum is, therefore, without jurisdiction and bad in law and cannot be sustained.

10.               Even on merits, the complainant has no case and his complaint could not have been allowed. The complainant has based his claim on Annexure C-2, which is the Motor Vehicle Cover Note, alleged to have been issued by OP No.3. There is no dispute about it that OP No.3 is the authorized agent or manager of M/s South City Ford Workship, A-34, Mohan Cooperative, Industrial Area, Mathura Road, New Delhi, as mentioned in Para No.3 of the complaint. There is no document produced by the complainant to prove if he is the authorized agent of OP No.2. These OPs have specifically denied the contention of the complainant. The complainant did not produce any such cover note issued by OP No.3, which may have been accepted by these OPs and on the basis of which some insurance policy may have been issued to prove that he was their authorized agent to procure the insurance business. OP No.3 is, therefore, a stranger and not an authorized agent so far as OPs No.1 and 2 are concerned and any cover note issued by OP No.3 cannot be used against OPs No.1 and 2.

11.               Annexure C-2 itself provides vide Para No.9 that the period of this cover note would expire on completion of 60 days from the date of issue. The cover note is alleged to have been issued on 29.11.2007 and its validity, therefore, expired on 29.1.2008. No rights, therefore, can be claimed on the basis of Annexure C-2 after that date or on 7.4.2008 when the vehicle is alleged to have been stolen.

12.               The conduct of the complainant is also doubtful and sows that this cover note may have been obtained subsequently from some unauthorized person after the theft of the vehicle. As mentioned earlier, Aditya Jha is not an employee of the appellants but he is the authorized agent or Manager of a motor workshop. The complainant has not been able to explain as to why instead of going to the office of the appellants in Delhi, he chose to go to the workshop to obtain the insurance cover. The amount of Rs.24,800/- was paid by the complainant in cash and not by cheque. After the period of 60 days was over, the validity of Annexure C-2 had expired but even then he did not ask the OPs for issuing the policy of insurance. He claims to have received a confirmation (Annexure C-5) from the appellants but the contention of the appellants shows that Annexure C-5 as well as the cover note (Annexure C-2) are fabricated documents. Their contention is that if an insurance is issued by them, they do not issue any such letters as Annexure C-5 and only issue either the cover note or the policy of insurance. There is no explanation from the complainant as to why he did not ask for the policy of insurance or did not file the complaint against the OPs for not issuing the said policy after the period of 60 days was over. It is also interesting to note that the vehicle was stolen from Delhi and the insurance cover (Annexure C-2) was also issued from Delhi. These facts, therefore, sow that the contention of the complainant was doubtful and it may have been maneuvered by him after the theft of the vehicle. It would not be difficult for anybody to get printed the forms like Annexure C-2 and to fill up the same. It is only for the complainant to approach the authorized agent for making the payment of huge amount of Rs.24,800/- and if the person to whom such a huge amount was being handed over was unable to give any evidence of his being an authorized agent of the insurer, the right course for the complainant was to go to the office of the appellants to obtain the policy instead of paying the amount to the Manager of  a motor workshop.

13.               In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that Annexure C-2 or Annexure C-5 are not proved to have been issued by the appellants and they never provided any insurance cover to the vehicle of the complainant, which is alleged to have been stolen on 7.4.2008 from Delhi. They, therefore, cannot be alleged to have been deficient in rendering any service to the complainant.

14.               In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there was no merit in the complaint and the same was liable to be dismissed. We, therefore, accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 9.3.2010 passed by the learned District Forum and dismiss the complaint with Rs.5,000/- as costs.

15.               Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

21^st March 2011.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

Ad/-

STATE COMMISSION

(Appeal No.151 of 2010)

Argued by:            Sh. Yogesh Saini, Advocate for the appellant.

                    Sh. G.S.Verma,  Advocate for respondent.

Dated the           21^st day of March, 2011.

ORDER

                Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, this appeal has been accepted.

Ad/-