Back
2010(1) CPR 159 (NC)
• NAIONAL COUNSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan , President
Hon’ble Mr. B.K. Taimni, Member
M/s Tarikh Export House and Another — Appellant
versus
United India Insurance Company Limited — Respondent
First Appeal No.479 of 2005
(From the order dated 26.08.2005 in original complaint no 197 of 2000 of karnatka state consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Bangalore)
Date Decided : 23-11-2009
Counsel for the Parties:
For The Appellants :Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Advocate
For The Respondent:Mr. Vishnu Mehra , Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Claim for insurance cover cannot be made where premium is paid after accident.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 17, 19 and 21—Insurance—Cargo Marine Insurance Policy—Vehicle carrying goods met with accident—Claim repudiated by Insurance Company on the ground that premium was received after accident—Claim dismissed by State Commission—Except oral statement of appellants and denial by respondent insurance company, there is no other evidence to prove that cheque and proposal form were handed over to insurance company on the date before accident—There is no corroborative evidence—Onus was on appellants which it had failed to discharge—In absence of any such evidence, claim of appellants has to be rejected—Order passed by State Commission upheld—Appeal dismissed. (Paras 2 to 4)
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Ashok Bhan J ., President —
Appellants herein, who were the complaints before the Karnataka state consumer Disputes Redressal commission, Banglore (hereinafter referred to as “the state commission” for short) have filled this first appeal against the order dated 26.08.2005 passed by the state commission in complaint no 197 of 2000 whereby the complaint of the appellant has been dismissed.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are :-
In march, 2000, complaint appellant no 1, which is a registered export house , having its head office at new delhi , received a purchase order from a foreign buyer, i.e., M/s Braeil granite north Hollywood, USA for supply of 3500 sq. ft. polished granite slabs. Accordingly, appellant no. 1 placed an order for manufacturing and polishing of the required granite slabs with complainant –appellant no.2, which is a manufacturing unit at Attibele. Appellants no.2, completed the job of polishing and packing of 1658 sq. ft. of paradiso classic polished granite slabs and 1476 sq. ft. of Kashmir gold light polished granite slabs between 20.6.2000 and 23.06 .2000 and the said slabs were property packed and loaded on lorry/ trailer No. KAO1-9242. The consignment was dispatched on 23-6-2000, evening from attibele. On the evening of 23-6-2000 before dispatching the above –said consignment, Mr . satish , an employee of the appellant, approached one Mr. Shesha nayak , devlopment officer of the respondent insurance company for obtaining cargo marine insurance policy and paid a premium of Rs.2,168/ by cheque dated 23-6-2000 in favour of the insurance company drawn on syndicate bank, Gandhinagar, banglore . it is alleged that the development officer having accepted the said premium issued the receipt for having received the premium on 26-6-2000, the vehicle carrying the above said goods met with an accident at about 8:300 A.M. near K.R. puram bridge bangalore. Appellants, therefore, filed a claim for compensation with the respondent insurance company which was repudiated on the ground that the appellant had not paid the premium on 23.6.2000 but the dame was in the office of the respondent on 20.6.2000 and, on that day itself the receipt of premium and the insurance policy were issued. Being aggrieved, appellant filed a complaint before the state commission seeking direction to the respondent insurance company to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.7,96,570 / with interest to the appellants.
Respondents, after being served, filed its written statement and affidavit denying the fact of receiving the cheque for premium on 23.6.2000 it was stated that the respondent had received the cheque for the premium on 26.6.2000 that the receipt and the insurance policy in favour of the appellant were issued on the same day.
3. The state commission after taking into account the pleadings as well as the evidence led by the parties, dismissed the complaint holding that the appellants have not produced any evidence to show that the proposal form and the cheque were delivered to the respondent insurance company on 23.6.2000 itself.
Appellants, being aggrieved by the order passed by the state commission have filed the present appeal.
Counsel for the parties have been heard at length.
Expect orally stating that the cheque and the proposal form were handed over to the agent of the respondent insurance company on 23.6.2000, the appellants did not produce any material to show that the cheque and the proposal form had been handed over to the agent on 23.6.2000.
4. Counsel appearing for the appellants, drew our attention to the receipt dated 26.6.2000 annexure A-4, issued by the insurance company in which it is stated that the respondent received the cheque dated 23.6.2000. counsel appearing for the appellants contended that since the date of cheque mentioned in the receipt is 23.3.2000, itself. Proposal from the cheque maybe dated 23.6.2000 but what was required to be established is whether the proposal form and the cheque were handed
