SAGIR ALAM Vs. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petitions are filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Orders passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in First Appeal Nos. 1100/2010 & 2178/2010 dated 08.12.2015.

(2.) The Petitioner/Complainant stated in his Complaint that he is a registered owner of a Santro Car No. UP21S3986. The Petitioner took a comprehensive insurance for his car. In August 2006, the Petitioner requested the Respondents to renew the insurance policy by submitting a cheque dated 16.08.2006 towards premium of Rs.8,974/-. The same was accepted by the Respondent, vide cover note No. VP00179214000101. In the above stated policy, the insurance was from 17.08.2006 to 16.08.2007 and the insured amount was Rs.2,84,818/-. On 07.05.2007, the Petitioner was returning home from Delhi in his Car. At Hamirpur Village, his Car met with an accident. The Car got completely damaged and the Petitioner suffered injuries. The Petitioner filed FIR No. 254/2007 at PS Bhojpur and after completing all the formalities and filing all the required documents, claimed insurance amount from Respondent No.1. The Petitioner received letter dated 09.09.2006 from Respondent No.2 stating that due to non-realisation of cheque issued to the Company by the assured, the above policy stood cancelled from inception". Thereafter, the Petitioner met Respondent No.2 and notified that he did not receive the concerned letter dated 09.09.2006. The Petitioner always had sufficient amount in his account and if by any reasons the cheque had been dishonoured, then as per the provisions of the N.I. Act, 1881, the Petitioner would have received the notice and the Insurance Policy would not have been cancelled without hearing the Petitioner. It was alleged that the letter dated 09.09.2006 was completely fake and receipt of the speed post attached with the letter was also fake. Hence, the Petitioner was to be provided with the insurance amount immediately. As the, actions of Respondents caused huge mental as well as economic loss, Complaint was filed.

(3.) The Respondents filed written statement in which they reiterated that the Petitioner had willfully concealed facts. Cheque issued by the Petitioner was dishonoured and therefore the policy was cancelled. The Respondents contended that no accident took place nor did the Petitioner got hurt. It was denied that the Respondents ever promised an amount of Rs.2,84,418/- to the Petitioner. It was also denied that the Petitioner received the letter dated 09.09.2006 from the Respondent on 25.07.2006. It was also argued that the provision of N.I. Act does not apply in this case and the Petitioner was not entitled to receive any compensation.