By Jayasree Kallat, Member:
The complaint was filed on 26-10-2010. The complainant had insured his motor cycle No. KL-11-A-1057 with the opposite party. The complainant had entrusted his son of 15 years old with cash to renew the policy from the opposite party’s office. When the complainant’s son approached opposite party on 6-5-2010 to remit the cash in order to renew the policy, the opposite party refused to accept the money informing that they had already closed the cash dealings. Complainant had contacted the opposite party on the same day over telephone. The opposite party had informed him that the cash acceptance was closed hence to approach opposite party the next day. Complainant had remitted the amount on 7-5-2010 by taking leave from his office. The complainant is alleging that the opposite party had closed the cash counter before the closure time. When the complainant enquired opposite party about the correct closure time he did not get a definite reply. The complainant had also given written complaint to the opposite party to inform him about the correct closure time. Complainant did not get a reply even after three months. The complainant is alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party for not accepting the renewal policy amount. Hence this complaint is filed against the opposite parties seeking compensation for the deficiency in service of the opposite party.
Opposite parties have filed version denying the averments in the complaint except those that are expressly admitted. Petition is not maintainable. It is only an experimental complaint. Opposite party admits that complaint is the insured under the opposite party. Opposite party denies that the complainant’s son had approached the first opposite party’s office for renewal of insurance policy on 6-5-2010 at 15.40 hrs. Nobody had approached the opposite party on behalf of the complainant on 6-5-2010. On 6-5-2010 at about 4.50 P.M. one person approached the cashier with a request to accept premium for the renewal of the policy of his motor cycle. As the cash was closed cashier had requested him to either pay the amount next day or deposit a cheque for the premium amount and get the policy renewed. Opposite parties are unaware whether it is the complainant who had approached the second opposite party for details regarding the closure timing. There was no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties as they are in the habit of receiving amount during cash hours. This is a false complaint filed by the complainant. Hence O.P. prays to dismiss the petition.
The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought in the petition?
The complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A4 were marked on complainant’s side. No evidence on the part of the opposite party.
It is the case of the complainant is that he had insured his motor cycle No. KL11-A-1057 with the opposite parties. On 6-5-2010 at 15.40 hrs his son had approached the first opposite party to remit the cash for renewal of the insurance policy of the above said vehicle. According to the complainant the opposite parties did not accept the cash for remittance informing his son that they had already closed cash for the day. Opposite party had asked complainant’s son to remit the cash next day. Complainant had complained regarding the closure of the cash at 15.40 hrs by the opposite party. Opposite party did not give him a definite reply as to the closure time of cash. Complainant had given a written complaint to the opposite party which is marked as Ext.A3. The opposite party did not give a reply to this complaint. Complainant had given an application under Right to Information Act enquiring about the closure time for remittance of cash. The copy of the information the complainant had received as per Right to Information Act is produced before the Forum marked as Ext..A2. Ext.A2 reveals that office timing is from 10 A.M. to 5.45 P.M.. The cash hours shall be up to 1 hr. before office hours ie. 4.45 P.M. It also reveals that one can remit cash at 3.40 P.M. The contention of opposite party is that nobody had approached the opposite party for remittance of cash for the policy renewal on 6-5-2010 on behalf of the complainant. In the version of opposite party Para-6 it is written that “ This second opposite party was told by the first opposite party that on 6-5-2010 at about 4.50 P.M. one person approached the cashier with a request to accept the premium for the renewal of the policy of his motor cycle.” This contradicts the earlier version of the opposite party that nobody had approached for remitting cash on 6-5-2010 on behalf of the complainant. The definite case of the complainant is that he had entrusted his son to remit the insurance policy premium for his motor cycle on 6-5-2010, which means that complainant’s son had approached the opposite party on 6-5-2010. If not such a case would not have risen. Another grievance of the complainant is that opposite party did not give him a definite reply to his enquiry about the closure time of cash. After going through the arguments put forward by both the parties and the documents Ext.A1 to A4 produced by the complainant, the Forum is of the opinion that this complainant had a grievance against the opposite party. The opposite parties have not taken enough care to redress the grievance of the complainant. Hence we are of the opinion that this complainant is entitled for relief.
In the result the petition is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.1000/- ( Rupees One thousand only) to the complainant as compensation within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order for the mental agony he had suffered.
Pronounced in the open court this the 26th day of September 2011.
Date of filing:26.10.2010.
SD/-PRESIDENT SD/-MEMBER SD/-MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant.
A1. Certificate of policy -United India Insurance Company Ltd.
A2. Copy of the information to the complainant had received as per Right to Information
Act dtd 05.04.10.
A3.Photocopy to the opposite party by the complainant dtd.17.07.2010.
A4. Photocopy of speed post proof of delivery Receipt.
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1.V.J.Baby(Complainant)
Witness examined for the opposite party:
None
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
