State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Parvinder Singh vs D.G.M. Branch Manager, The New India ... on 23 January, 2012
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
(A/11/2306)
Appeal No.26/2011
Instituted on : 12.01.2011
Parvinder Singh, S/o Shri Gurcharan Singh,
R/o : Harshit Tower, Phase - 4,
House No.4, Near Gajanand Parisar, Tatibandh,
Raipur (C.G) .... Appellant
Vs.
D.G.M./Branch Manager,
The New India Assurance Company Limited,
Second Floor, Jeevan Deep Building,
8, Parliament Street,
New Delhi - 110001 ...... Respondent
PRESENT :
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri K. Anandani, for appellant.
Shri D.L. Rathore, for respondent.
ORDER (ORAL)
DATED : 23/01/2012 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against, order dated 15.12.2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) in Complaint Case No.455/2009, whereby the complaint of the appellant herein, seeking compensation of Rs.33,850/- from the respondent/Insurance Company, on the ground that total amount of Rs.1,94,618/- was paid by the complainant to the repairer, on account of damages to the // 2 // insured vehicle, has been dismissed on the ground that complainant executed a Discharge Voucher, as full satisfaction of his claim, for Rs.1,60,000/- and in view of that Discharge Voucher, he is not entitled of getting any further amount as compensation from the insurance Company.
2. Undisputedly, vehicle Maruti Swift Car bearing No.C.G.04-HB- 0135, was of the registered ownership of the appellant herein, and was insured by the respondent/Insurance Company under a Comprehensive Insurance Policy for sum assured Rs.4,99,655/-. The said vehicle suffered road accident, intimation of which was given to the Insurance Company. The vehicle was repaired and then Insurance Company paid Rs.1,60,760/- on account of damages to the insured vehicle. The contention of the complainant before District Forum was that, he was to spend a sum of Rs.1,94,618/- on repairs of the vehicle and as the vehicle was brand new, therefore, no depreciation was to be deducted and Insurance Company was to pay the entire amount of repairing and it committed deficiency in service in not paying the whole amount of repairing of the vehicle, whereas, the defence of the Insurance Company was that the complainant got even those parts replaced, which were repairable and that is why he agreed for payment of Rs.1,60,000/-, as full satisfaction of his claim and signed the Discharge Voucher, on full satisfaction, accordingly the amount // 3 // was then paid to him, thus, Insurance Company, had not committed any deficiency in service.
3. The District Forum, agreed with the defence taken by the Insurance Company and dismissed the complaint by the impugned order.
4. Before us, affidavit of the complainant/appellant to the effect that neither the Discharge Voucher, dated 26.03.2010, is bearing his signature nor any amount was paid to him by the Insurance Company by cheque, pay-order or by demand draft. It has been specifically stated by him in this affidavit that a notice was issued by him through his counsel on 29.09.2009 to the Insurance Company and thereafter, no document was signed by him in favour of the Insurance Company. It was alleged that document filed by the Insurance Company was forged one. After this affidavit by the appellant, the Insurance Company got the document examined by a qualified handwriting expert and filed the Report of Handwriting Expert Dr. Ku.S.K. Dhenge. In that Report, signatures on the disputed document were compared with the signatures on two other documents and this conclusion was drawn that all three documents are bearing signatures of the same person and the same person has signed all three documents, including disputed one.
// 4 //
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the Report of Handwriting Expert and submitted that the documents, which were used by the Handwriting Expert for the purpose of comparison of signature on disputed document, were also not signed by the complainant/appellant. He submitted that right from very beginning, his case was that the Insurance Company had not paid full amount of repairing charges of the vehicle. It has also been submitted by him that the documents, which were used for comparison by the Handwriting Expert, were supplied by the Insurance Company and those documents i.e. claim intimation, as well as claim form were also not written by the complainant/appellant and are not bearing his signatures.
6. It appears that new evidence has been brought on record by both parties, in respect of the document, which is said to be Discharge Voucher on full satisfaction of the claim. In view of the allegation made by the complainant/appellant regarding signature on the disputed document, as well as signatures on other two documents, we find that the matter needs a further probe and cannot be decided at this stage. It appears necessary that the matter be remitted back to the District Forum, so that both parties can lead further evidence and can examine and cross-examine Handwriting Expert as well as some other person, before whom the admitted documents were signed or in whose possession the admitted documents were there in the office of // 5 // the Insurance Company. The complainant/appellant may also be examined and cross-examined in this regard.
7. In view of aforesaid, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the District Forum, with a direction to provide opportunity of leading further evidence to both parties including cross examination of the Handwriting Expert, as well as complainant/appellant and then to decide the matter afresh on merits. Office is directed to send the Report of Handwriting Expert and the affidavit of the complainant/appellant, which have been filed before us as evidence, during the pendency of this appeal, to the District Forum along with its record, so that, it can be used as evidence by both parties before District Forum. Parties are directed to appear before District Forum on 21.02.2012. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice S.C. Vyas) (V.K. Patil)
President Member
/01/2012 /01/2012