PITAMBERDAS vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 11.6.2001 in Complaint No. 11/2003 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called the ''district Forum'' for short) dismissing the complaint of the complainant/appellant.

THE original complainant/appellant Dhaneshwar Das filed a complaint alleging that he is the owner of a Mahindra Jeep bearing registration No. MP 23 GA 5080. It was further alleged that in order to pay the premium of insurance of the said jeep, he obtained a draft dated 17.7.1999 for Rs. 7,462/- from State Bank of India, Pithora and deposited the same with the respondent insurer who directed that the policy shall be issued on 19.7.1999 and that the appellant should collect the policy documents on the said date i.e., on 19.7.1999. However, on 19.7.1999 when the complainant went to collect the policy document he was informed by the respondent insurer that since the vehicle had met with an accident, the policy of insurance shall not be issued. Subsequently, the complainant/appellant sent letters dated 29.7.1999, 7.8.1999, 16.9.1999 and 7.10.1999 requesting the respondent insurer to issue the insurance policy but the same remained unheeded. THE Bank Draft for payment of premium amount, submitted by the complainant was also returned to him by the respondent/insurer on 28.10.1999. It was averred by the complainant that the respondent/insurer committed deficiency in service by not insuring the vehicle. THE complainant prayed that the vehicle be insured from 17.7.1999 and the respondent insurer should issue an insurance policy in that regard. Compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for mental harassment and inconvenience due to delay was also sought by the complainant. The complaint was resisted by the respondent insurer. It was averred that no premium was received by the respondent and that no proposal or application for insurance was submitted to the respondent insurer for issuance of the policy. It was denied that the policy was undertaken to be issued on 19.7.1999. It was averred that the complainant was not entitled to any relief claimed by him.

During the pendency of the complaint the original complainant Dhaneshwar Das died and his L.Rs. have been substituted in his place.

LEARNED District Forum held that there was no material to hold that the draft of Rs. 7,462/- issued by State Bank of India, Pithora was handed over to the respondent insurer. It was, therefore, held that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent insurer. The complaint was accordingly dismissed. The learned Counsel for complainant/appellant strenuously urged that the draft of Rs. 7,462/- was prepared by the original complainant and was handed over in the office of the respondent on 17.7.1999. It was further averred that the respondent was under an obligation to cover the risk of the vehicle and to issue the insurance policy on receipt of the premium amount by the said draft dated 17.7.1999. It was also urged that instead of doing so, the respondent has returned the draft to the complainant much later on 28.10.1999. It was, therefore, submitted that learned District Forum erred in dismissing the complaint.

LEARNED Counsel for respondent insurer, however, submitted that the assertion of the complainant regarding payment of premium by draft dated 17.7.1999 for Rs. 7,462/- is an engineered one. It was submitted that the said draft was never deposited with the respondent insurer, and the respondent never undertook to insure the vehicle. It was submitted that 17.7.1999 was a holiday being 3rd Saturday of the month on which the respondent''s offices are closed. It was further submitted that the envelope produced in the District Forum, by which the complainant alleged that the draft was returned was also never sent by the respondent Company. It was, therefore, submitted that the material placed on record by the complainant to show that he had paid the premium amount towards insurance of the vehicle was fabricated and cannot be relied upon. It was thus submitted that the impugned order dismissing the complaint was justified. In view of the controversy and the submissions as above, the main question that arises for consideration is: as to whether the original complainant Dhaneshwar Das had paid the premium of Rs. 7,462/- by draft dated 17.7.1999. It may be noticed in the above context that no acknowledgement of the said draft dated 17.7.1999 has been obtained by the original complainant Dhaneshwar Das from the respondent insurer. It is also noticed that 17.7.1999 was 3rd Saturday and thus holiday. Therefore, as submitted by learned Counsel for respondent insurer there was no question of the draft having been deposited in the respondent''s office on 17.7.1999, as has been averred by the complainant. The averments of the complainant, therefore, cannot be accepted. It may be noticed in the above context that the complainant has made no averments as to whom the draft was given by him.

IT may also be noticed that according to the complainant/appellant the said draft was returned on 28.10.1999 by post and the envelope allegedly containing the draft has also been filed in the record of the District Forum, However, the said envelope would show that it is not a printed envelope, in which the postal letters are normally sent by the respondent which is a Public Sector Undertaking. Moreover, there is nothing to prove that the Bank Draft was returned in the said envelope, as is contended on behalf of the complainant/appellant. Moreover, since the complainant has failed to establish that the said draft dated 17.7.1999 was ever handed over to the respondent in its office, there is no question of the said Bank Draft being returned to the respondent insurer.

LEARNED Counsel for complainant/appellant also filed some documents including affidavit of Shyamlal Pradhan and Bishamber Das in support of his contentions that the original complainant Dhaneshwar Das had deposited the draft with the respondent. However, this averment would be of no use in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. No. reason has been assigned as to why such affidavits filed belatedly during the pendency and of this appeal were not filed before the District Forum. It is thus clear that the averments and contentions raised on behalf of the complainant/appellant that the complainant Dhaneshwar Das had paid the premium by Bank Draft for Rs. 7,462/- is totally unworthy of belief and it appears that the material placed in support of the said averments do not inspire any confidence whatsoever. This complaint, therefore, appears to have been filed in order to possibly foist a false claim regarding the accident, in which the vehicle was subsequently involved. Thus the complaint has been filed with oblique motive. Such practice certainly deserves to be condemned. In the foregoing circumstances though we would have directed more stringent action against the complainant but since unfortunately the original complainant has expired, we consider it proper to direct that complainant shall pay Rs. 2,000/- under Section 26 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Since the complaint was justifiably dismissed by the District Forum, the impugned order calls for no interference.

This appeal accordingly stands dismissed with the direction to the complainant/appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) to the respondent/insurer besides payment of cost of this appeal to him which is quantified at Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only. Appeal dismissed.