Back
MADHYA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Rakesh Saksena, President and Neerja Singh, Member
PRASHANT SINGHAI - Appellant
Versus
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPAY LTD. AND ANOTHER - Respondents
First Appeal No. 1192 of 2009.
Decided on : 17-06-2015
Manish Nema, Advocate, for the Appellant; C.S. Lamba, Advocate, for the Respondent
In the absence of evidence showing that the cover note is forged, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the insured amount.
Headnote:
Insurance - Vehicle Insurance - The court held that in the absence of evidence to show that the cover note is forged, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the insured amount. The cover note is considered a guarantee of insurance, and the Insurance Company cannot deny liability based on the absence of a policy document.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's vehicle was insured with the respondent Insurance Company, and it was stolen. The Insurance Company denied the claim, alleging that the cover note was suspicious and no policy was issued.
Finding of the Court:
The District Forum dismissed the complaint, but the appellate court found that the Insurance Company was liable to pay the insured amount as the cover note was not proven to be forged.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Insurance Company was liable to pay the insured amount for the stolen vehicle based on the validity of the cover note.
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of evidence showing that the cover note is forged, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the insured amount. The cover note is considered a guarantee of insurance, and the Insurance Company cannot deny liability based on the absence of a policy document.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the respondent Insurance Company was directed to pay the appellant the IDV of the vehicle with interest and bear the cost of the appeal.
ORDER
Neerja Singh, Member - This appeal is by the complainant aggrieved by the order dated 30.5.09 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sagar, dismissing his complaint against the opposite party, the Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company), in CC No 251/08.
2. The brief facts of the case, as depicted by the appellant, are that he was the owner of a Hero Honda motorcycle, which he purchased for Rs. 33,900. The vehicle was insured with the respondent Insurance Company for the period 22.8.06 to 21.6.7. A cover note, No 282340, was issued for the insurance coverage of the vehicle. The vehicle was stolen on 25.8.6. A report was lodged with the police and a FIR was registered. A claim was filed with the Insurance Company and a surveyor, Shri R.S. Dubey, was appointed. The appellant alleges that though he provided all the relevant documents to the Insurance Company, the claim was not settled.
3. The respondent states that the cover note is suspicious. Had the vehicle been insured, a policy would have been issued. They therefore deny that any insurance cover was provided by them. They further state that if a cover note is issued, the engine number and chassis number is traced on it. The vehicle was stolen within 3 days of the insurance, which also makes it suspicious.
4. Accepting the contentions of the respondent Insurance Company, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.
5. Heard.
6. The respondent Insurance Company did not settle the claim on the ground that the theft as well as the cover note is suspicious. Their ground for holding it to be suspicious is that no policy was issued and secondly that the cover note does not have the engine number and chassis number traced on it.
7. We have perused the Cover note filed on record. It contains all the details of the vehicle and also details of the owner of the vehicle. It also has the seal of the respondent Insurance Company and signature of their agent. It is not their case that an agent is not authorised to issue cover notes. The engine and chassis numbers are mentioned on the note but they have not been traced, for which the respondent's agent should give an explanation. However, there is no column or space in the cover note for tracing the numbers. Further, the appellant had made the agent, Dinesh Guranya, a party in the District Forum. Though he remained ex parte in the Forum, being their agent, the respondent could have obtained his affidavit to substantiate their contention that the cover note is fake.
8. Learned Counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that a bare glance shows that the cover note is fake as even the value of the vehicle is mentioned incorrectly. We are not impressed by the argument. The value of the vehicle mentioned is the depreciated value as it was the second year of insurance. He further argued that there was no policy document. The vehicle was stolen within 3 days of the cover note having been issued. Before the appellant could obtain the policy document, he informed the Insurance Company that it was stolen. Even otherwise, a cover note is a guarantee of insurance given by the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company cannot back out from their liability and say that there is no policy document.
9. Other than the bald statement that the cover note is forged and the theft of the vehicle is suspicious, the respondent have not substantiated their allegations with any evidence. The report of the surveyor/investigator is also not filed on record. No affidavit of the agent who issued the cover note is filed. If the cover note was forged or fabricated, the respondent has not explained why no FIR has been lodged against anyone. In our opinion, the appellant's vehicle was insured by the respondent and the Insurance Company is liable to pay the sum insured. The District Forum erred in dismissing the complaint.
10. The appellant has placed before us the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. Ind
