<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 25.07.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 30th SEPTEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1638/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.M.Sandeep,S/o Munireddy MAged about 35 years,# 128, Thubarahalli,Whitefield,Bangalore – 560 066.Represented by SPA Holder,Sri.Munireddy M.V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,105 A- 107A, Cears Plaza,136, Residency Road,Bangalore – 560025.By its Branch ManagerAdvocate– Sri.Ravi S.Samprathi<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to issue renewed insurance policy with respect to his vehicle No.KA-53-E-7480 and pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant is the RC owner of the vehicle No.KA-53-E-7480. OP covered the insurance of the said vehicle. On 06.03.2008 complainant received the information from the OP that his policy is going to expiry on 14.04.2008 and instructed to renew the same. Immediately complainant acted upon, signed the renewal instructions and sent a cheque for Rs.783/- dated 12.04.2008 with a request to OP to renew the policy for one more year. Though OP encashed the said cheque but failed to renew the policy and send the same to the complainant in time. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to OP went in futile. For want of insurance coverage of the said vehicle he is unable to take the vehicle on public road for his use. He was forced spend more than Rs.10,000/- to travel by hiring Auto Rickshaw and taxies. This is all because of the inaction on the part of the OP. Thus complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. When his repeated requests and demands went in futile he even caused legal notice, again there was no response. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to them on the receipt of the renewal proposal from the complainant they did renew the policy and send it through the courier service to the admitted address of the complainant but unfortunately it was not delivered because complainant was not found in the given address. For that OP can’t be blamed. The other allegations made by the complainant are all false, frivolous and baseless. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. Hence they are not liable to pay the compensation. Subsequently they renewed the policy and delivered the same to the complainant, which complainant has accepted and received. So the purpose for which the present complaint is filed is fulfilled. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant is the R.C owner of the vehicle KA-53-E-7480 and OP covered the insurance for the year 2007-08. According to the complainant on 06.03.2008 he received the information from the OP that his policy expires on 14.04.2008 and OP requested him to renew it. Complainant immediately signed the renewal instructions form and sent a cheque dated 12.04.2008 for Rs.783/- towards the insurance premium.<br /> <br /> 7. On the perusal of the defence of the OP, OP has not disputed the fact of receipt of said cheque dated 12.04.2008 and realization of the same. Now the grievance of the complainant is that though OP realized the said amount in time but failed to issue the policy. For want of policy he was unable to take his vehicle on a public road. His repeated requests and demands made to OP to send the renewal policy went in futile. Correspondence made in that regard are produced. Of course those correspondence are not at dispute. Complainant being fed up with the hostile attitude of the OP even got issued the legal notice. Copy of the legal notice is also produced. Again there was no response. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP.<br /> <br /> 8. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant which finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents. The defence set out by the OP is that they did renew the said policy in time and sent it through the courier service to the admitted address of the complainant, but complainant was not found in the address. That is why it was not delivered. The affidavit of the person from the courier service is not filed. There is no other corroborative evidence to support the defence of the OP. Under such circumstances we find the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake just to save their skin out of sin.<br /> <br /> 9. Complainant has produced several other correspondence and letters which were sent to the same address as noted in the complaint and other relevant documents and they are served on him and subsequently when OP sent the said renewed policy to the same address again, it was delivered to him. These are all the instances which clearly goes to show that there is a negligence and carelessness on the part of the OP in not renewing the said policy in time. Naturally complainant was forced to take the Auto Rickshaw and other mode of convenience to reach his office or factory as the case may be by spending his pocket. He is deprived of using his own vehicle, for want of insurance policy that must have caused him both mental agony and financial loss.<br /> <br /> 10. We are satisfied that complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. OP having kept mum without renewing the policy even after the receipt of the renewal amount in time for more than 5 to 6 months speaks to their negligence and deficiency in service. As the policy is already renewed and delivered to the complainant, that relief can’t be considered again. But as far as mental agony and financial loss is concerned complainant deserves compensation. Bearing in mind the facts and circumstances of the case justice will be met by directing the OP to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 30th day of September 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />