Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/51/2017

Sumit Ranjan Agrawal - Complainant(s)

Versus

1-Manager, M/S. Maruti Insurance Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. B.S. & Associates

02 Aug 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer.Case No.- 51/2017

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member

Sumit Kumar Agrawal,

S/O- Deepak Kumar Agrawal

At Lane No.3, Mahavirpada, Dhanupali,

Po/PS-Dhanupali,

Dist-Sambalpur, Odisha.                                                                  …..Complainant

Vrs.

1. Manager, M/S Maruti Insurance Broking Private Ltd.,

Nelson Mendela Road, Vasant Kunj,

New Delhi-110070.

2. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.,

At 1^st Floor , Sai Sadan, Budhaja, Po-Budharaja,

PS-Ainthapali, Dist-Sambalpur, Odisha.

3. Manager, SKY Automobiles(Formerly Maruti Automobiles)

Plot No. A/7, Maharaja Cinema,

Ahcarya Vihar, Bhubaneswar-751002                                    ….Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant       :-         Sri. B.Singh, Advocate & Associates.
2. For the O.P.No. 1                        :-          Mr. B.K.Panda, Advocate & Associates.
3. For the O.P. No.2                        :-          None
4. For the O.P.No. 3                        :-          Sri S.C.Das, Advocate & Associates.

 

DATE OF HEARING :04.07.2022, DATE OF JUDGEMENT : 02.08.2022

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle Maruti Wagon R New VXI, bearing Regn. No. 1 through O.P No. 2, vide policy No. MOP3471065 dtd. 03.03.2016. Before the expiry of insurance validity period i.e Mid Night of 02.03.2017, the Complainant issued a cheque bearing No. 108620 dtd. 17.02.2017 of Axis Bank Bhubaneswar Branch in favour of O.P No. 3about renewal of the Insurance of said vehicle from 02.03.2017 to 02.03.2018. Surprisingly the Complainant received a letter from O.P No. 2 regarding dishonoured of said cheque issued by the Complainant by State Bank of India mentioning that “sign not according to specimen”. In view of the above the insurance was issued to cover the above vehicle stands cancelled for inception. And request the Complainant to return the Complainant to return the original Policy and if the Complainant wishes to continue the insurance of his vehicle, then he will contact with nearest Maruti Dealer. It seems from the letter of O.P No. 2 that the impugned cheque has been presented in the State Bank of India, where the Complainant has no specimen signature or account and it quite natural, the bank has returned the aforesaid cheque mentioning that “Sign is not according to specimen”. As such the Complainant has no way responsible resident or dishonor of cheque. As such the Complainant claims for compensation.
2. The version of the O.P No. 1  is that the O.P No. 1 the complaint filed by the Complainant is wholly misconceived, prima facie proves the malafide intention of the Complainant and is thus unsustainable in the eyes of law. The OP No.1 is not an Insurance Company instead is an insurance broking company through which the insurance for the vehicle of the Complainant has been sourced. The role of the O.P No. 1 being a facilitator is to appraise customers about the features and benefits of motor insurance products offered by various Insurance Companies. After this facilitation, customers buy insurance as per their own will and violation and pays insurance premium which goes to the concerned Insurance Company only. In the instant case, the vehicle of the Complainant has been insured by OP No. 2 and his insurance policy has been cancelled by them only, hence OP No. 2 is answerable and the OP No.1 is liable to be deleted. The Complainant has no locus standi to initiate the present proceedings against the OP No.1 as the Complainant is not a Consumer of the OP No.1 and the same is liable to be dismissed against the O.P    No. 1. The O.P. No.2 has not appeared and filed version.

The version of the O.P No. 3 is that the Complainant had issued the A/C Payee cheque bearing No. 018620 of Axis Bank, Bhubaneswar in favour of O.P No. 2 through the O.P No. 3 for the Insurance premium of the case vehicle OD-02. AB 4475. When the O.P No. 3 deposited the said cheque in favour of O.P No. 2 as per return memo of the Bank of the O.P No. 2, the O.P No. 2 immediately intimated to the Complainant through proper intimation. The O.P No. 3 also intimated to the Complainant about the matter through telephone. As per the telephonic call by the O.P No. 3, the Complainant has transfer the insurance premium i.e. of Rs. 10,698/- 0n dtd. 10.03.2017 in favour of IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. And till today the Insurance of said case vehicle is continuing under the said Insurance Company through the O.P No. 3 since last three years i.e. 2017-2018 and 2018-2019. The O.P party No. 3 provided proper free service immediately and there is no deficiency in service on part of the O.P No.3. The Complainant has issued the cheque knowing fully aware about the signature contained in the disputed cheque does not tally with the specimen signature laying in the register of the Bank of the Complainant for which the said cheque has been dishonored due to the reason mention in the return memo and for which no such premium has been debit from the account of the Complainant for which the Complainant has not perform his part fairly. So the O.P No. 2 is bound to cancel the insurance Bond as unpaid of premium by the Complainant. So no such deficiency of service, unfair trade practice, mental agony does not arises towards the Complainant.

 

3. From the above it is found that the allegation made by the Complainant against the O.Ps is not correct. The disputed cheque does not tally with the specimen signature laying in the register of the Bank of the Complainant for which the said cheque has been dishonored due to the reason mention in the return memo and for which no such premium has been debit from the account of the Complainant.The Complainant has failed to proof the allegation mentioned in his complaint petition. So it is ordered that the case is dissmissed on contest.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 2^nd day of August 2022.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.