SHAKILA BANO W/O. SHRI FIROZ KHAN, JILANI PAINTER GALI, WARD NO. 36, AMBIKAPUR, TEH. & DISTRICT Vs. HEMANT KOUSHIK & 3 ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 30.01.2015 of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur ('the State Commission') in First Appeal no. 482 of 2013.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner on getting financed from the HDFC Bank purchased one Mahindra and Mahindra Bolero Pick-up vehicle no. UP 64 3H 7686 on 20.12.2011 and got insured the said vehicle with respondent nos. 3 and 4 and in exchange, the petitioner deposited premium of Rs.16,405/- and the subject vehicle was insured for a period from 20.12.2011 to 19.12.2012, and cover note no. 2315200173510200000 was issued. On 28.05.2012 when Siraj Khan, the driver was bringing the subject vehicle from Renukot to Ambikapur, the said vehicle met with an accident. A report was made to police chowki Wadraf Nagar on 28.05.2012 and information regarding the accident was also given to respondent nos. 3 and 4. Assurance was given by the insurance company that surveyor would be sent, but the surveyor was not sent by the respondent nos. 3 & 4 till 01.06.2012. On 1st and 2nd June 2012 written information was given to the office of the respondents that in case inspection of the vehicle was not done, the petitioner would be at liberty to get repaired the said vehicle and whatever expenses would be incurred on the subject vehicle, would have to be paid by the respondent nos.3 and 4. Appointment of the surveyor was not done by the respondent nos. 3 & 4. The petitioner got done the repairs of the vehicle. An amount of Rs.1,68,741/- was incurred as expenses and claim was submitted by the petitioner before respondent no. 3, but the payment was not made, the respondent nos. 3 and 4 committed professional misconduct and deficiency in service. Therefore, petitioner was compelled to file the consumer complaint.

(3.) The respondent no. 3 in his written statement before the District Forum, stated that the policy was issued on 20.12.2011 for the vehicle in question and the expiry of the policy was 19.12.2012. Premium of the above-mentioned policy was sent on 16.12.2012 through cheque no. 061273. The cheque amount of the premium was written in figures as Rs.16,406/-, but in words it was written as Rs.60,406/-. Due to the aforesaid reason the amount of premium was not paid by the bank in favour of respondent no. 3. Consequently insurance policy was rejected by the respondent no. 3 on 27.12.2011 and immediate information was also sent to the petitioner that the policy issued on 27.12.2011 was not in existence and the policy was zero. Respondent was not responsible to the petitioner for compensation. Petitioner has no right to obtain compensation of any kind, therefore, complaint of the petitioner be dismissed.