| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.288 of 03-10-2017 Decided on 08-05-2018 Gagandeep Bansal R/o #2835, Street No.1, Phase-1, Vishal Nagar, 45' Feet Road, Bathinda ........Complainant Versus United India Insurance Company, 7-A, Civil Lines, Bathinda. .......Opposite party Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member. Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur Member Present:- For complainant: None. For opposite party: Sh.O.P Vinocha, Advocate. ORDER M.P Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Gagandeep Bansal (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite party United India Insurance Company (here-in-after referred to as opposite party). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one policy for his car bearing No.PB-03P-1560 vide cover note No.2004013117N100133212 dated 5.5.2017 for sum assured of Rs.1,30,000/- from opposite party. He paid Rs.4490/- to opposite party. The office of the company ensured the complainant that the policy shall be sent to his address within 15 days from the date of cover note. The car is insured for the period from 5.5.2017 to 4.5.2018. It is alleged that opposite party failed to provide the insurance policy as per commitment. The complainant has written letter dated 3.6.2017 to the Manager of opposite party for issuance of the policy, which was duly received by the office of the company. The company issued the policy bearing No.2004013117P103753404 through post. It is further alleged that to the surprise of the complainant, in the policy, assured value of the vehicle is mentioned as Rs.92,800/- instead of Rs.1,30,000/- as mentioned in the cover note. The complainant many times approached the company for correction of the amount, but its manager failed to do so. It is asserted that the complainant is entitled to correct the insurance for sum assured of Rs.1,30,000/- instead of Rs.92,800/-, which was issued by the insurance company fraudulently, which caused loss to the complainant to sell the vehicle. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. Due to these sufferings, he has suffered physical and mental tension and unnecessary harassment. For these sufferings, he has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and correction in the assured value in addition to litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, this complaint. Upon notice, opposite party appeared through its counsel and contested the complaint by filing its written version. In the written version, opposite party has raised the legal objections that the complainant has no cause-of-action and locus-standi to file the complaint. He has not approached this Forum with clean hands and deliberately concealed the true facts with malafide and dishonest intention. It is pleaded that the complainant is very clever person. He informed the official of the insurance company that National Insurance Company demanded an amount of Rs.4490/- from him after providing 50% deduction under OD Scheme. As such, official of the insurance company received the payment and issued the certificate to the complainant in the market. The complainant was asked that it was being issued, if system of computer would accept the same, against sum assured of Rs.1,30,000/-. On next working day, the computer did not accept the sum of the premium and found short by Rs.559/-. The complainant was informed accordingly. The demand was raised from the complainant, but he told that while company has issued the certificate/cover note, the policy has to be given and he will not pay the balance premium. The officias of the insurance co. Mr.Ashok Kumar alongwith Mr. Kapoor went to the house of complainant to finalize the matter, but the complainant never became ready to concede their request. The complainant has filed the complaint on totally false facts only to harass and humiliate opposite party. There is no deficiency in services in any manner. The complainant himself is responsible for his mischief committed by him with ulterior motive, to deceive the official of the insurance company for a sum of Rs.559/-. Last legal objection is that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant was not ready to pay the balance amount of Rs.559/-, but the concerned official from his own pocket deposited the balance amount and prepared the fresh policy as per demand of the complainant. Even then, it was not accepted by the complainant, rather he informed the official that he has filed the case and it would be decided by the court. Opposite party has controverted all other averments of the complainant and reiterated its stand as taken in the written version and detailed above. In the end, opposite party has prayed for dismissal of complaint. Parties were asked to produce the evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant have tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 29.9.2017, (Ex.C1); photocopy of cover note, (Ex.C2); photocopy of postal receipt, (Ex.C3); photocopy of letter, (Ex.C4); photocopy of envelop, (Ex.C5); photocopy of policy, (Ex.C6) and closed the evidence. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite party has tendered into evidence affidavit of Ashok Kumar dated 5.4.2018, (Ex.OP1/1); photocopies of policies receipt, (Ex.OP1/2 and Ex.OP1/3) and closed the evidence. Since the complainant is not present. Parties have already closed their evidence. Therefore, we proceed to decide the case in the absence of the complainant keeping in view his version in the complaint and evidence brought on record. We have heard learned learned counsel for opposite party and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for opposite party has submitted that the averments of the complainant are to be examined in the light of written version of opposite party. Of-course, complainant has paid a sum of Rs.4490/- for getting the insurance of his vehicle with IDV of Rs.1,30,000/-, but subsequently, it was found that amount paid by him was short of Rs.559/-. He refused to pay short amount despite reminders. As such, opposite party issued the policy keeping in view the premium received from the complainant. It is not case of the complainant that opposite party has misappropriated any amount out of amount of Rs.4490/- received from him. The complainant has rather produced on record policy, (Ex.C6), which was for Rs.92,800/-. This document proves that the charges for this IDV was Rs.4489/-, which was received from the complainant. Opposite party has placed on record policy, (Ex.OP1/2) read with Ex.OP1/3. It proves that a sum of Rs.559/- paid by Ashok Kumar in order to cover the difference of premium of IDV of Rs.1,30,000/-. The premium received from the complainant was actually meant for IDV of Rs.92,800/-. He cannot claim benefits of his own wrongs and default. He has filed this complaint by concealing the true facts and with malafide intention. As such, the complaint be dismissed with special cost. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions. Admitted facts are that the complainant got his vehicle insured through agent Ashok Kumar. He paid Rs.4490/- as premium for IDV of Rs.1,30,000/-. It is not disputed that the policy, (Ex.C6) issued to the complainant is having IDV of vehicle to the tune of Rs.92,800/- instead of Rs.1,30,000/-, but controversy is to be resolved keeping in view the version of opposite party also. Opposite party has revealed in the written version that the premium paid by the complainant was short by Rs.559/- for the purpose of IDV of Rs.1,30,000/-. The demand was raised from the complainant and he refused to pay this amount. In the affidavit, (Ex.C1), complainant has not categorically refuted this averment of opposite party. When this averment of opposite party is examined in the light of documents produced by it, its version is found acceptable. The complainant has placed on record copy of package policy, (Ex.C6). Of-course, it is for IDV of Rs.92,800/-, but the premium received from the complainant is also reflected as Rs.4489/- against Rs.4490/- received from him. Therefore, it cannot be held that opposite party has accepted the premium required for policy for IDV of Rs.1,30,000/-. Opposite party has also placed on record copy of policy, (Ex.OP1/3) for IDV of Rs.1,30,000/-. It proves that this policy was revived after payment of Rs.559/- in addition to Rs.4489/- already received. It is not case of the complainant that he has paid this amount of Rs.559/-. Therefore, it is accepted that this amount has been paid by the agent from his own pocket. The policy was for the period from 5.5.2017 to 4.5.2018. IDV was already revived. No loss has been caused to the complainant. The agent has rather paid Rs.559/- from his own pocket only for the reason that the complainant denied to make the payment. In these circumstances, no deficiency in service can be found on the part of opposite party. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room. Announced:- 08-05-2018 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Jarnail Singh) Member (Sukhwinder Kaur) Member
| |
