JUDGEMENT (State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Sukhminder Singh And Another vs Metlife India Insurance Company … on 26 March, 2018 )

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Sukhminder Singh And Another vs Metlife India Insurance Company … on 26 March, 2018

                                        FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB

       SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                First Appeal No.1272 of 2013

                               Date of Institution : 22.11.2013

                                  Order Reserved on: 23.03.2018

                                  Date of Decision : 26.03.2018

 
1. Sukhminder Singh son of Hira Singh

2. Sukhchain Singh son of Sukhminder Singh both residents of Village Rupana, Tehsil and District Sri Mukatsar Sahib.

…..Appellants/complainants Versus

1. Metlife India Insurance Company Limited, Brigade Sesganahak 5, Vani Vilas Road, Basavangaudi, Bangalore-500004 through its Managing Director.

2. OP no.2 deleted, vide order dated 29.02.2012.

3. OP no.3 deleted, vide order dated 11.04.2012.

4. Manisha Malhotra, House No.2195, Sector-15-A, Chandigarh.

…..Respondents/opposite parties First Appeal against order dated 20.09.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sri Muktsar Sahib.

Quorum:-

Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-

The complainants tendered in evidence affidavit of Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting Expert Ex.CW-1/A alongwith his report Ex.CW-1/B alongwith other documents Mark A-1 to A-8, affidavits Ex.C-1 and C-2 and documents Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence.

In this regard, the complainants examined Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting & Prints Expert, who tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A. This witness also submitted his report Ex.CW-1/B after examining the disputed signatures and specimen signatures of complainant and concluded that there are forged signatures on proposal form by means of impersonation, because they were not similar in characteristics. This witness has gone unrebutted by OPs on the record in our view. The testimony of the complainants received due corroboration from the testimony of document expert witness that complainants have not signed the documents and they were forged one. 

As a result of our above discussion, we accept this appeal of the appellants and set aside the order of the District Forum, Sri Muktsar Sahib dated 20.09.2012 and direct respondent no.1 of this appeal to refund the entire deposited amount of complainants with interest @9% per annum from the date of its deposits till actual payment. OP no.1 is further directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation. The appeal is, thus, accepted and stands disposed of by reversing the order of the District Forum, Sri Muktsar Sahib. The above amounts shall be payable by OP no.1 to complainants within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (SURINDER PAL KAUR) MEMBER March 26, 2018 MM

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top