MADAN ARORA vs United India Insurance Company Ltd.

THE sole grievance of the learned Counsel for the appellant in this appeal filed against order dated 6.10.2003 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) in Complaint Case No. 408 of 2002 is that while allowing the complaint and awarding balance amount of Rs. 36,000/-, the District Forum did not take into consideration the value of the accessories of the car about which an averment was made in the complaint and the insurance cover of a sum of Rs. 3,38,000/- was issued to the appellant including the costs of the accessories.

THE District Forum held the appellant entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,61,000/- and after deducting the amount of Rs. 3,25,000/- already paid by the respondent-United India Insurance Company (for short hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company), the balance amount of Rs. 36,000/- was directed to be paid with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the complaint i.e. 3.4.2002 till its payment and costs were also awarded of a sum of Rs. 1,000/-. THE balance amount representing the costs of the accessories is of a sum of Rs. 22,000/-. THE District Forum held that the complainant failed to lead evidence to prove the costs of the accessories and has not placed on record cash memo/receipt/invoice with regard to the payment of the costs of the accessories. The learned Counsel for the appellant also could not give any valid reason for not placing the evidence regarding the costs of the accessories such as a cash memo, receipt and invoice but contended that now the appellant had this document in his possession and the same be taken into consideration which has been filed as Annexure A-II which again is a photocopy of the cash memo dated 19.7.2001. He also could not dispute the fact that the cash memo, the photocopy of which has been annexed as Annexure A-II, in appeal was available with the appellant/complainant at the time when his complaint was being adjudicated. In case this document was available with the complainant, he was required to file the same and prove his case for claiming a sum of Rs. 22,000/-, but he failed to do so.

In our considered opinion, there are no good grounds for admitting this additional evidence in appeal and consequently the prayer made on behalf of the appellant in this regard is without any merit and is declined.

IN the next place, it was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the policy of insurance included the costs of the accessories and after including the same, the vehicle was insured for a sum of Rs. 3,38,000/- and contended further that the respondent had not clearly and categorically disputed the case of the appellant regarding the costs of the accessories of the car. The learned Counsel for the appellant was, however, unable to show from the pleadings of the respondent that they had admitted the claim of the complainant regarding the costs of the accessories. Since the claim of the appellant regarding the costs of the accessories was not admitted, he was required to prove the same by leading cogent and credible evidence which he failed to lead. The District Forum has rightly disallowed the claim regarding the costs of accessories of sum of Rs. 22,000/-. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed in limine. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal dismissed.