State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Khairati Ram Salwan vs United India Insurance Company Ltd on 31 January, 2013
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
DAKSHAN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.1111 of 2009
Date of institution : 05.08.2009
Date of decision : 31.01.2013
Khairati Ram Salwan son of Sh. Mast Ram r/o # 372, Model Town,
Amritsar (Punjab)
.....Complainant/Appellant
Versus
1. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Gali Murginhana, Alfa
Lane, Batala Road, Amritsar through its Divisional Manager.
2. ICICI Bank Ltd. Mall Road Branch, Amritsar. Through its Branch
Manager.
.....OPs/Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated
20.03.2009 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Amritsar .
Before:-
Sardar Jagroop Singh Mahal,
Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member Argued by:-
For the appellants : Sh.Vivek Verma, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh. Vinod Gupta, Advocate
JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER This is complainant's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 20.03.2009 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short the District Forum) vide which the complaint was dismissed.
First Appeal No.1111 of 2009 2
2. According to the complainant, he got insured his truck from the United India Insurance Company Ltd., Amritsar OP/respondent No. 1 on 31.7.2007. The premium of Rs. 33,265/- was paid by him through a cheque drawn on the ICICI Bank Ltd. OP/respondent No.2. Unfortunately, the truck met with an accident and he spent about Rs. 1,77,000/- on its repair and submitted the claim to the insurance company but received a letter dated 29.8.2007 alleging that the cheque given by him was dis- honoured by the Bank as his signatures differed with the specimen signatures given by him in the ICICI Bank Ltd. OP/respondent No. 2. It was alleged that there was sufficient amount in his account, there was no mis- match of the signatures and he therefore, served a legal notice on the OP/respondent No. 1 to pay the insurance amount, but they did not. The complainant therefore, filed the present complaint to direct the OP/respondents to compensate him to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs each for mental tension, agony and harassment and to pay the cost of complaint.
3. United India Insurance Company Ltd. OP/respondent No. 1 in its reply admitted that it had issued a cover note to the complainant and the payment of the premium was made by him through a cheque dated 31.7.2007 drawn on OP/respondent No. 2 but when presented the said cheque was dis-honoured on the ground that there was difference in signatures. It was alleged that since the OP/respondent No. 1 did not get any premium due to dis-honouring of cheque, the cover note became void and there was no contract of insurance between the parties. It was alleged that they were not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant and therefore, the complaint be dismissed.
4. The ICICI Bank Ltd. OP/respondent No. 2 also contested the complaint alleging that a cheque was received by it towards the premium of the insurance policy but since the signatures thereon did not match with the specimen signatures of the complainant the same was returned to the First Appeal No.1111 of 2009 3 OP/respondent No. 1 on 3.8.2007. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on their part.
5. Both the parties were given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their contentions.
6. After hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum vide impugned order dated 20.03.2009 dismissed the complaint. The complainant has challenged the same through the present appeal.
7. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record including the written arguments.
8. The complaint was dismissed by the learned District Forum on the ground that the signatures of the complainant on the cheque differ with his specimen signatures maintained by OP/respondent No. 2-Bank. The learned District Forum held that if the cheque was dis-honoured, there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2-Bank and on the other hand the cover note issued by OP No. 1 became void and therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of any of the OPs. This reasoning, on the face of it, appears to be genuine but when we probe further it becomes clear that there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP/respondent No. 1.
9. The complainant had issued the cheque on 31.7.2007 and the OP/respondent No. 1 issued the cover note under which the complainant was entitled to compensation in case any damage was caused to the vehicle. The OP/respondent No. 1 sent the cheque for collection to OP No. 2-Bank who dis-honoured the same and intimated this fact to OP/respondent No. 1 on 3.8.2007. It was necessary for the OP/respondent No. 1 to immediately inform the complainant about the dis-honour of the cheque and cancel the cover note so that the complainant issued a new First Appeal No.1111 of 2009 4 cheque or made the payment in cash to the OP/respondent No. 1 or got the vehicle insured from some other insurance company. The complainant was however, informed about this development on 29.8.2007 after he had submitted the claim documents to it. It is also a fact that in the meantime, the vehicle had met with an accident on 17.8.2007 in which it was damaged. There is no explanation as to why the OP No. 1/Respondent No. 1 did not cancel the cover note and inform the complainant about the dis- honour of the cheque for the period from 3.8.2007 to 17.8.2007 within which period the complainant would have paid the premium either in cash or by issuing a fresh cheque or would have got the vehicle insured from some other company.
10. On the one hand, there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP/respondent No.1 and on the other hand they denied the insurance claim of the complainant. We are of the opinion that it is due to the deficiency in service on the part of OP/respondent No. 1 due to which complainant is being put to loss by the OP/respondent No. 1. Needless to mention that a party i.e. OP cannot be allowed to benefit out of its own wrong and also for the negligence of the OP, the complainant cannot be forced to suffer the loss. We are therefore, of the opinion that the OP/respondent No. 1 would be liable to compensate the complainant, firstly, due to the reason that when the accident took place the insurance cover note was perfectly valid and the complainant had not cancelled the same and secondly because the OP/respondent No. 1 withheld the information about the dis-honour of the cheque from the complainant for an un-explained long delay of 14 days.
11. So far as the OP/respondent No. 1 is concerned, there was no negligence on its part because the cheque was dis-honoured by it on the ground that the signatures did not tally with the specimen signatures of the complainant. The learned District Forum had gone through the specimen First Appeal No.1111 of 2009 5 signatures maintained in the OP No. 2 Bank and compared the specimen signatures with the signatures appended by the complainant on the cheque dated 31.7.2007.
12. The complainant has submitted Ex. C-10 showing that he spent a sum of Rs. 1,77,676/- on the repair of the truck. The complainant has filed an affidavit to this effect. On the other hand, there is no evidence to suggest if the complainant is not entitled to the said amount.
13. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is wrong and cannot sustain. The complaint was liable to succeed but has been wrongly dismissed by the learned District Forum. We accordingly, accept the appeal with costs, set aside the impugned order and consequently allow the complaint. The OP/respondent No. 1 is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,77,676/- alongwith Rs. 5000/- as cost of litigation. If the entire amount is not paid within 30 days, the OP/respondent No. 1 would be liable to pay the same alongwith interest @ 9% per annum since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 7.10.2008 till the amount is paid to the complainant.
Copies of the orders be supplied to the parties free of costs.
(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (PIARE LAL GARG) MEMBER (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER January 31, 2013 Kalyan Refer to Reporter