National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Bharti Singh Rathor vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & 2 Ors. on 9 May, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 591 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 30/04/2015 in Complaint No. 77/2011 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) 1. BHARTI SINGH RATHOR WIFE OF SANGAM SINGH RATHORE, R/O. VILLAGE & POST THULRAI PARGNA, TEHSIL DALMAU, DISTTRAI BAREILLY UTTAR PRADESH ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & 2 ORS. OFFICE:- 3, NEAR MATYARI CROSSING, OPPOSITE UNION BANK OF INDIA, FAIZABAD ROAD, LUCKNOW-226001 UTTAR PRADESH 2. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER BRANCH OFFICE-FIRST, THIRD FLOOR,16/98, DIMAL, KANPUR [U.P] 3. MOHIT AUTO TRADERS, THROUGH PROPRIETOR S. SURJIT SINGH SON OF SH. JAGDISH SINGH, HOUSE LOCATED NEARBY NEELKANTH NURSING HOME,PRAKASH NAGAR, CANAL ROAD, CITY & DISTRICT-RAEBAREILY-229001 U.P. ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. PREM NARAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Appellant : Mr.Sangam Singh, AR For the Respondent : For the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: Mr. Kishore Rawat, Advocate
For the Respondent No.3: NEMO
Dated : 09 May 2018 ORDER
This appeal has been filed by the appellant Bharti Singh Rathor against the order dated 30.04.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in complaint No.77/2011.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed a complaint claiming the payment of seven bills of repairs. The repairer was also made a party along with the Insurance Company. The repairer in its written statement stated that only one bill was genuine and other six bills were not issued by the repairer and the same bear forged signature of the repairer. Accordingly, the State Commission allowed Rs.2,52,000/- vide its order dated 30.04.2015 as under:-
"Complaint of complainant is allowed partially. Complainant would be entitled to get the sum of Rs.2,52,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty two thousand only) expenditure incurred on the repairs of truck. Interest at the rate of 9 percent would be payable on this amount from the date of filing complaint till the date of payment. Complainant would be entitled to get Rs.50,000/- for the loss of mental agony and business loss and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation."
3. Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, the present appeal has been filed.
4. Heard AR of the appellant as well as learned counsel for the Insurance Company. The AR of the appellant stated that in another case of repair filed by the same appellant the same repairer has accepted all the bills and the payment has been allowed accordingly. However, in the present case, the repairer has denied the payment of six bills and has stated before the State Commission that the bills have not been issued by the repairer. It was stated by the AR that all the bills have been issued by the repairer and bear his signature. Hence, the appellant is entitled to get the total amount of repair from the Insurance Company.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company stated that the Insurance Company has already paid the amount as per the order of the State Commission to the appellant. If the repairer himself is not agreeing to the bills filed by the complainant, Insurance Company cannot be held responsible to pay the same and the appeal filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation deserves to be dismissed.
6. I have carefully considered the arguments of both parties and have examined the record. First of all, all the bills claimed by the appellant have not been filed here. Moreover, if the repairer is not accepting the bills in question and is denying the payment thereof, obviously, no liability can be fastened on the Insurance Company to pay amount of those bills to the complainant. The matter has been looked into by the State Commission and State Commission has passed a reasonable order awarding Rs.2,52,000/- to the complainant along with huge compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
7. The main point of appeal is non-consideration of the bills by the State Commission, which have not been accepted by the repairer. The complainant has to prove her case on the basis of record and documents, which are available with the complainant. If the repairer is not accepting these bills, on what basis these bills can be accepted by the State Commission. The AR of the appellant was not able to clarify this question. It is quite clear that if the bills are forged, no relief can be granted to the complainant by the State Commission on the basis of these bills. As consumer forum do not have jurisdiction to decide the matter of fraud or deceit, I do not find any force in the appeal filed by the appellant. If the appellant feels aggrieved on the ground that genuine bills have not been accepted by the State Commission, the appellant is free to move to the civil court to get relief against the repairer. However, I find no error in the order dated 30.04.2015 of the State Commission. Hence, the appeal No.591 of 2015 stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
...................... PREM NARAIN PRESIDING MEMBER