BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, VELLORE DISTRICT AT VELLORE. PRESENT: THIRU. A. SAMPATH, B.A., B.L., PRESIDENT TMT. G. MALARVIZHI, B.E. MEMBER – I THIRU. K. DHAYALAMURTHI,B.SC. MEMBER – II CC. 21 / 2004 MONDAY THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011. Dr. J. Saravanan, S/o. Thiru. Jothi, 26E Servaimunuswamymudali Street, Velapadi, Vellore 632 001. … Complainant. - Vs – M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, By its Branch Manager, K.B.S. Building 1st Floor, Gandhi Nagar West, Katpadi Road, Vellore 632 006. … Opposite party. . . . . . This petition coming on for final hearing before us on 8.11.2011, in the presence of Thiru. T.L. Narayanan & G. Giridharan, Advocate for the complainant and Thiru. P. Thulasimaniselvam, Advocate for the opposite party and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following: O R D E R Pronounced by Thiru. A. Sampath, President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore District. 1. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant purchased a Toyota Qualis bearing No.TN 23 3476 under a Hire purchase agreement with ICIC bank, Chennai. He insured the same comprehensively with the opposite party. The complainant’s father and his driver took the car to the office of the opposite party where it was inspected by the concerned staff, premium was paid on 11.6.03 and receipt was also issued thereby establishing a contract of Insurance covering the vehicle from 11.6.2003. The father of the complainant had handed over the cheque dt.11.6.03, bearing No.832761 for a sum of Rs.14,346/- as demanded by the staff of the opposite party and was immediately issued a stamped receipt. The complainant’s car met with an accident on 12.6.03 at about 6.30 p.m. near Sriperumbudhur police station limits. The complainant immediately intimated the police through the driver Velu and the FIR in Cr.No.193/2003 duly registered by the police. The opposite party deputed the surveyor and assessor to assess the damages and accordingly they inspected the vehicle and submitted a report. The car was repaired by the dealer and as the opposite party assured that he would be reimbursed, a sum of Rs.94500/- was paid by the complainant to the repairs by two demand drafts on 26.6.03 and 8.7.03, in pursuance of the estimate given by Lansen Toyota on 17.6.03. Complainant was shocked to receive a letter from the opposite party repudiating their liability setting out that the car was not insured with them on 12.6.03 and that the insurance began only on 13.6.03. The cheque was accepted and a receipt was also issued on the same dated viz., 11.6.03 only after inspection of the vehicle, and the contract of Insurance was deemed to have been finalized and begun on 11.6.03 itself. The conduct of the opposite party amounts to gross deficiency of service. The complainant was put a lot of mental agony and physical stress and strain. The complainant therefore prays this Forum for directing the opposite party to reimburse the complainant in the sum of Rs.94500/- spent i.e. paid by the complainant to Lanson Toyota on the undertaking given by the opposite party for reimbursement, and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as damages for the mental agony, physical stress and strain caused by the gross deficiency of service and unfair trade practice of the opposite partly and to pay a sum of Rs.94500/- with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of submission of claim form i.e. 19.6.03 till the date of full and final payment, and to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards the costs of this complaint. 2. The averments in the counter filed by the opposite party is as follows: The opposite party does not admit any of the allegations in the petition and puts the complainant to the strict proof of each and every one of the allegations resorted to by him. The allegations in para-2 of the complainant are not at all admitted as correct. It is further false to allege that on 11.6.03 the complainant’s father his driver took the car to the office of the opposite party where it was inspected and premium was paid and receipt issued. As a matter of fact no cash premium was paid. The present case pertains to a Renewal of the policy. The said vehicle Toyota-Qualis was insured with the opposite party under the policy bearing No.012104/31/02/02928 for the period 24.5.02 to 23.5.03. Only on 11.6.03 i.e. after a gap of 17 days the complainant’s father came to the opposite party’s officer for an on behalf of his son the complainant herein and wanted a renewal of the policy. A cheque for the premium amount was also tendered. After a long gap of 17 days they wanted a renewal of the policy. The complainant’s father acting on behalf of his son had signed the proposal form under the heading Declaration by insured and additional questionnaire for Motor proposals for break in insurance. Since it is a case of renewal after a break in the policy as per existing rules and directions the renewal and commencement of the Risk comes into being only after two days i.e. from 13.6.03. The opposite party did not act in breach of contract. As a matter of fact on the date of the accident there was no contract of insurance at all to commit any breach of it. Surveys were conducted by the opposite party after the accident since it is a procedure being adopted in all cases of accidents. As a matter of fact they are done without any prejudice. The said act of the opposite party cannot be construed as their acceptance of the coverage. There is no deficiency or gross deficiency as alleged. There is no unfair trade practice. The allegations made in para-9 of the complaint are not at all admitted. There is no question of any mental agony to the complainant. There was no coverage on the date of the accident and as such the claim is baseless. The complainant who is a party to that agreement cannot wriggle out of it for the purpose of sustaining the claim. Therefore this petition is to be dismissed with costs. 3. Now the points for consideration are: (a) Whether there is any deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite party? (b) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs asked for?. 4. Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 were marked on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 to Ex.B8 were marked on the side of the opposite parties. Proof affidavit of the complainant and Proof affidavit of the opposite party have been filed. No oral evidence let in by either side. 5. POINT NO. (a):- The complainant contended that he had paid the premium amount with the opposite party on 11.6.03 and the receipt was also issued on the same date only after inspection of the vehicle, hence the contract of insurance was deemed to have been finalized and began on 11.6.03 itself. While so, the complainant’s vehicle met with an accident on 12.6.03 at about 6.30 p.m. near Sriperumbudhur police station limits and the FIR in Cr.No.193/2003 duly registered by the police. The opposite party was also deputed the surveyor and assessor to assess the damages, accordingly they inspected the vehicle and submitted a report. Thereafter the vehicle was repaired by the dealer and as the opposite party assured that he would be reimbursed a sum of Rs.94,500/- was paid by the complainant to the repairs. But the opposite party repudiating their liability setting out that the car was not insured with them on 12.6.03 and that the insurance began only on 13.6.03. Hence the conduct of the opposite party amounts to gross deficiency of service. 6. The opposite party contented that the complainant’s Toyota-Qualis bearing registration No.012104/31/02/02928 insured with the opposite partly for the period 24.5.02 to 23.5.03. After a gap of 17 days the complainant’s father came to the opposite party’s officer for an on behalf of his son, the complainant herein and wanted a renewal of the policy, and a cheque for the premium amount was also tendered on 11.6.03. Since it is a case of renewal after a break in the policy, as per existing rules and directions the renewal and commencement of the risk comes into being only after two days i.e. 13.6.03. But the complainant’s vehicle met with an accident on 12.6.03 at about 6.30 p.m. Therefore there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. 7. It is admitted facts of the parties that the complainant’s vehicle Toyota-Qualis bearing No.TN 23 3476 met with an accident on 12.6.03 at about 6.30 p.m. near Sriperumbudhur Police Station limits and a case was also registered by the police in Cr.No.193/2003. The opposite party also deputed the surveyor and assessor to assess the damages and accordingly they inspected the vehicle and submitted a report to the opposite party. The complainant has not denied the contention of the opposite party that the complainant’s vehicle insured with the opposite party under the policy bearing No.012104/31/02/02928 for the period 24.5.02 to 23.5.03, and only on 11.6.03 i.e. after the gap of 17 days the complainant’s father wanted a renewal of the policy and submitted a proposal form Ex.B2, for the period 13.6.03 to 12.6.04. along with the cheque bearing No.832761 for a sum of Rs.14346/- for premium on 11.6.03. From the perusal of the Insurance policy Ex.B1 it is seen that the complainant’s vehicle insured with the opposite party for the period from 24.5.02 to mid night 25.5.03. It is admitted fact that after the gap of 17 days i.e. on 11.6.03, the complainant had submitted his proposal form Ex.A1 along with the cheque for the premium amount to the opposite party and a receipt Ex.A2 was also issued on the same date. 8. From the perusal of Proposal Form Ex.A1 dt.11.6.03 and certificate of Insurance Ex.A6 of complainant’s vehicle, it is seen that the complainant mentioned in the said proposal Form that he wanted a renewal of the policy for the period from 13.6.03 to 12.6.04. Accordingly, the opposite party insured the complainant’s vehicle for the period from 13.6.03 to 12.6.04 and issued the certificate of Insurance Ex.A6 to the complainant. The complainant’s vehicle met with an accident on 12.6.03 at 6.30 p.m. But the renewal of the policy and commencement of the risk comes into being only 13.6.03. Therefore, it is clear that at the time of accident, there was no contract between the complainant and the opposite party. Hence the opposite party did not act in breach of contract. 9. Hence, taking all the above facts into consideration from the contention in the complaint and the counter, as well as proof affidavit of the both the parties, and from the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B8, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has not clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party herein. Hence we answer this point (a) as against the complainant herein. 10. POINT NO : (b) In view of our findings on point (a), since, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has not clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party herein. We have also come to the conclusion that the complainant is not at all entitled to any relief asked for by him, in this complaint. Hence we answer this point (b) also as against the complainant herein. 11. In the result this complaint is dismissed. No costs. Dictated to the Steno-typist and transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by the President, in Open Forum, this the 21st day of November 2011. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT. List of Documents: Complainant’s Exhibits: Ex.A1- 11.6.03 - X-copy of Proposal for Insurance submitted on behalf of the Complainant. Ex.A2- 11.6.03 - X-copy of receipt. Ex.A3- 12.6.03 - X-copy of FIR. Ex.A4- 14.6.03 - X-copy of Inspector’s report. Ex.A5- 16.6.03 - X-copy of intimation submitted to opposite party. Ex.A6- 13.6.03 - X-copy of policy issued by the opposite party. Ex.A7- 17.6.03 - X-copy of Estimation. Ex.A8- 25.6.03 - X-copy of Survey Report. Ex.A9- 19.6.03 - X-copy of Claim Form. Ex.A10- 26.6.03 - X-copy of Cheque for Rs.50,000/- Ex.A11- 8.7.03 - X-copy Cheque for Rs.44,500/- Ex.A12- 28.7.03 - X-copy of letter by complainant to opposite party. Ex.A13- 4.8.03 - X-copy of letter by complainant to opposite party. Ex.A14- 1.12.03 - X-copy of letter of repudiation by opposite party to complainant. Opposite party’s Exhibits: Ex.B1- -- - Policy Proposal Form. Ex.B2- -- - X-copy of Proposal form for private cars.
Ex.B3- -- - Policy Schedule. Ex.B4- -- - X-copy of FIR. Ex.B5- -- - Statement of N.S.Velu. Ex.B6- -- - Repudiation letter sent to the complainant with Ack. Card. Ex.B7- 4.8.03 - X-copy of letter from complainant to the opposite party. Ex.B8- 13.10.03 - X-copy of investigation report. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
| | [HONABLE MRS. Hon'ble Tmt G.Malarvizhi, B.E] MEMBER[ Hon'ble Thiru A.Sampath, B.A., B.L] PRESIDENT[HONABLE MR. Hon'ble Tr K.Dhayalamurthy, Bsc] MEMBER | | 
