Neelam Devi vs Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company

A. P. Sahi, President Member

Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant / Complainant and learned Counsel for the Respondent.

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh has rejected the claim of the Appellant with regard to the loss of a vehicle which the Appellant alleges to have been insured with the Insurance Company / Opposite Party, M/s Cholamandalam M. S. General Insurance Company Limited.

The facts as stated are that the Husband of the Appellant met with an accident on 16.12.2012, whereafter on 24.12.2013 the truck owned by her husband was stolen with regard to which an F.I.R. was lodged and a claim from the Opposite Party was also raised. In the absence of any satisfaction, Claim Petition was filed before the State Commission where the Opposite Party filed their Written Version disputing the claim on the ground that the policy on which reliance was placed by the claimant is a fake policy and they also placed on record that the policy bearing the same number was in relation to a different vehicle, for a different period and in the name of a different policy holder namely, Mr. Kanhaiya Lal Verma. In short the policy relied down by the claimant was a fake policy and was also bearing a fake seal.

The State Commission accepted the objections taken and dismissed the Complaint.

It is against the said dismissal that the present Appeal has been filed.

Learned Counsel submits that Opposite Party did not undertake any investigation nor have they filed any document or otherwise to demonstrate as to which policy had been issued for the period 16.08.2013 to 15.08.2014 and therefore this deficiency cannot be taken as an advantage for the purpose of setting up of a defense that the policy is fake.

It is further submitted that an Affidavit has also been filed before this Commission as well clearly stating therein the premium amount had been paid in cash to an agent of the Company for which no receipt was given by the Agent who handed over the Insurance Policy which has been relied on by the Complainant.

The insurance policy on which reliance has been placed by the either side is on record.

A perusal of the document filed by the Opposite Party would demonstrate that the Policy No. 3379 / 00482082 / 000 / 02 was issued in favour of Mr. Kanhaiya Lal Verma for a vehicle bearing Registration No. CG-04-JB-5110 manufactured in the year 2006. This policy bears cover note no. 8111249 and is in relation to a much smaller vehicle than a truck called “Tata Ace”. The Insurance cover is for the period between 14.10.2010 to 13.10.2011. This policy has been continued in 2011-12 and in 2012-13, copies of which have been placed on record.

As against this, the Policy Certificate relied on by the Appellant is bearing cover note Number 8988438 even though the policy number 3379 / 00482082 / 00 has been mentioned resembling that of Mr. Kanhaiya Lal Verma, but at the end the digits “00” have been mentioned instead of “02”. It is with this distinction that the Complainant claims the said policy to be a correct policy of the vehicle in question. It is also to be noted that the year of the manufacture of this vehicle (Truck) is 2012 and the Registration mark is also different namely CG-04-JC-9936.

Once the Insurance Company had come up with a clear case that this was not a policy in respect of the vehicle that has been claimed by the Appellant, then the burden lay on the Appellant to demonstrate the status and the genuineness of the policy relied on by them. The Affidavit which has been filed dated 15.01.2020 does not inspire confidence inasmuch as handing over the premium in cash to an Agent and no receipt having been given or any indication of the deposit of the premium amount therefore does not support the claim by the Appellant. It is therefore evident that the policy relied on by the Complainant is neither genuine nor can it be correlated to any premium paid. The policy issued by the Insurance Company to Mr. Kanhaiya Lal Verma, having the same number was issued and continued from 2010 to 2013. There is no valid reason to believe that a policy with the same number will be issued by the Company in 2012 to another person. It is quite probable that the so called agent facilitating the Complainant may have handed over a procured manipulated policy.

Consequently the State Commission had not erred in rejecting the Complaint and therefore this Appeal also lacks merits and is accordingly rejected.