Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

377/2003

K.Ramabhadran - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager - Opp.Party(s)

16 Feb 2009

ORDER


Thiruvananthapuram
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,Vazhuthacaud
consumer case(CC) No. 377/2003

K.Ramabhadran 		...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Branch Manager 		...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Smt. Beena Kumari. A 2. Smt. S.K.Sreela 3. Sri G. Sivaprasad

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:


 


 

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER


 


 

O.P.No. 377/2003 Filed on 23/9/2003


 

Dated: 16..02..2009


 

Complainant:


 

K. Ramabhadran, Padmini Nilayam, Paroorkkuzhi, Vedivachankovil-P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.


 

Opposite party:


 

Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Ramakrishna Building, Aristo Junction, Thiruvananthapuram.


 

(By Adv. V. Manikantan Nair)


 

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 21..10..2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30..01..2009, the Forum on 16..02..2009 delivered the following:


 

ORDER


 

SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:


 

The allegations in the complainant are as follows: The complainant had third party insurance for his Maruti 800 car bearing Reg.No.KL.01.L.1233 with the opposite party. The opposite party is collecting excess premium from the complainant as compared to the other Insurance Companies in Kerala. The opposite party had collected Rs.1,181/- in the year 2002 and Rs.1,215/- in the year 2003. Hence the complainant prays for an order directing the opposite party for refund of the excess amount collected from him.


 

2. The opposite party has filed their version contending mainly that the complaint is not maintainable. The opposite party has not received higher premium from the complainant for his Maruti Car bearing Reg.No.KL.01.L.1233. The opposite party had issued a comprehensive policy commencing from 17/8/2000 to 16/8/2001 and the premium collected is Rs.2,768/-. But at the time of renewal of the above policy the complainant submitted in writing that he wanted only third party policy and hence the above policy is renewed as an Act policy valid from 17/8/2001 to 16/8/2002. The premium collected was only Rs. 425/-. The premium payable in respect of different class of vehicles are statutorily fixed by the Tariff Advisory Committee. The premium rates provided by the Tariff Advisory Committee are minimum rates. This opposite party has not received any higher amount from the complainant. Hence the opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint.


 

3. On the contentions raised the following issues arise for consideration:


 

          1. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

          2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          3. Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?


 

4. Points (i) to (iii): On going through the pleadings it is found that the main grievance of the complainant is that excess amount has been collected from him as compared to other Insurance Companies. The opposite party in his version contended that the premium payable in respect of different class of vehicles are statutorily fixed by the Tariff Advisory Committee. The premium rates provided by the Tariff Advisory Committee are minimum rates. The opposite party further contend that loading on Tariff premium by 100% is permissible for adverse claims experience of the vehicle insured and this opposite party loaded Rs.500/- each for the last two renewals due to the adverse claim experience of the insured vehicle, therefore the allegation that more premium has been received by this opposite party from the complainant than the other Companies under GIC is not correct.


 

5. The complainant has not raised any allegation with regard to deficiency in service. The dispute is with regard to exorbitant amount charged by way of premium. The complainant is challenging the premium fixed by the Tariff Advisory Committee. This is a clear case of question of pricing and the question of pricing cannot be gone into by the Consumer Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. This being the settled position we hereby hold that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.


 


 

In the result the complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to seek his remedy, if any, before appropriate court of law.


 

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.


 


 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 16th day of February, 2009.


 


 

S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.


 


 


 


 

 

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.


 


 


 

BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER.

ad.


 


 


 


 

O.P.No.377/2003

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness: Nil

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Copy of certificate-cum-policy schedule of vehicle No.KL 01-L-1233 dt. 17/8/2003

P2 : Policy schedule dated 17/8/2002


 

III. Opposite party's witness: Nil

IV. Opposite party's documents:


 

D1 : Copy of certificate-cum-policy schedule with total premium for Rs.3742.


 

D2 : Certificate-cum-policy schedule with total premium for Rs.2,768/-.


 

D3 : Copy of certificate-cum-policy schedule with total premium for Rs.425/-

D4 : Copy of policy schedule renewed from 17/8/2002 to 16/8/2003 with total premium for Rs.1,181/-

D5 : Copy of certificate cum policy schedule with premium collected as Rs.1,215/-


 

D6 : Copy of petition OP-(M.V) No.1756/99,MACT,Tvpm.


 

ad. PRESIDENT.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:


 


 

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER


 


 

O.P.No. 377/2003 Filed on 23/9/2003


 

Dated: 16..02..2009


 

Complainant:


 

K. Ramabhadran, Padmini Nilayam, Paroorkkuzhi, Vedivachankovil-P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.


 

Opposite party:


 

Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Ramakrishna Building, Aristo Junction, Thiruvananthapuram.


 

(By Adv. V. Manikantan Nair)


 

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 21..10..2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30..01..2009, the Forum on 16..02..2009 delivered the following:


 

ORDER


 

SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:


 

The allegations in the complainant are as follows: The complainant had third party insurance for his Maruti 800 car bearing Reg.No.KL.01.L.1233 with the opposite party. The opposite party is collecting excess premium from the complainant as compared to the other Insurance Companies in Kerala. The opposite party had collected Rs.1,181/- in the year 2002 and Rs.1,215/- in the year 2003. Hence the complainant prays for an order directing the opposite party for refund of the excess amount collected from him.


 

2. The opposite party has filed their version contending mainly that the complaint is not maintainable. The opposite party has not received higher premium from the complainant for his Maruti Car bearing Reg.No.KL.01.L.1233. The opposite party had issued a comprehensive policy commencing from 17/8/2000 to 16/8/2001 and the premium collected is Rs.2,768/-. But at the time of renewal of the above policy the complainant submitted in writing that he wanted only third party policy and hence the above policy is renewed as an Act policy valid from 17/8/2001 to 16/8/2002. The premium collected was only Rs. 425/-. The premium payable in respect of different class of vehicles are statutorily fixed by the Tariff Advisory Committee. The premium rates provided by the Tariff Advisory Committee are minimum rates. This opposite party has not received any higher amount from the complainant. Hence the opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint.


 

3. On the contentions raised the following issues arise for consideration:


 

          1. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

          2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          3. Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?


 

4. Points (i) to (iii): On going through the pleadings it is found that the main grievance of the complainant is that excess amount has been collected from him as compared to other Insurance Companies. The opposite party in his version contended that the premium payable in respect of different class of vehicles are statutorily fixed by the Tariff Advisory Committee. The premium rates provided by the Tariff Advisory Committee are minimum rates. The opposite party further contend that loading on Tariff premium by 100% is permissible for adverse claims experience of the vehicle insured and this opposite party loaded Rs.500/- each for the last two renewals due to the adverse claim experience of the insured vehicle, therefore the allegation that more premium has been received by this opposite party from the complainant than the other Companies under GIC is not correct.


 

5. The complainant has not raised any allegation with regard to deficiency in service. The dispute is with regard to exorbitant amount charged by way of premium. The complainant is challenging the premium fixed by the Tariff Advisory Committee. This is a clear case of question of pricing and the question of pricing cannot be gone into by the Consumer Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. This being the settled position we hereby hold that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.


 


 

In the result the complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to seek his remedy, if any, before appropriate court of law.


 

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.


 


 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 16th day of February, 2009.


 


 

S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.


 


 


 


 

 

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.


 


 


 

BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER.

ad.


 


 


 


 

O.P.No.377/2003

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness: Nil

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Copy of certificate-cum-policy schedule of vehicle No.KL 01-L-1233 dt. 17/8/2003

P2 : Policy schedule dated 17/8/2002


 

III. Opposite party's witness: Nil

IV. Opposite party's documents:


 

D1 : Copy of certificate-cum-policy schedule with total premium for Rs.3742.


 

D2 : Certificate-cum-policy schedule with total premium for Rs.2,768/-.


 

D3 : Copy of certificate-cum-policy schedule with total premium for Rs.425/-

D4 : Copy of policy schedule renewed from 17/8/2002 to 16/8/2003 with total premium for Rs.1,181/-

D5 : Copy of certificate cum policy schedule with premium collected as Rs.1,215/-


 

D6 : Copy of petition OP-(M.V) No.1756/99,MACT,Tvpm.


 

ad. PRESIDENT.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:


 


 

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER


 


 

O.P.No. 377/2003 Filed on 23/9/2003


 

Dated: 16..02..2009


 

Complainant:


 

K. Ramabhadran, Padmini Nilayam, Paroorkkuzhi, Vedivachankovil-P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.


 

Opposite party:


 

Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Ramakrishna Building, Aristo Junction, Thiruvananthapuram.


 

(By Adv. V. Manikantan Nair)


 

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 21..10..2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30..01..2009, the Forum on 16..02..2009 delivered the following:


 

ORDER


 

SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:


 

The allegations in the complainant are as follows: The complainant had third party insurance for his Maruti 800 car bearing Reg.No.KL.01.L.1233 with the opposite party. The opposite party is collecting excess premium from the complainant as compared to the other Insurance Companies in Kerala. The opposite party had collected Rs.1,181/- in the year 2002 and Rs.1,215/- in the year 2003. Hence the complainant prays for an order directing the opposite party for refund of the excess amount collected from him.


 

2. The opposite party has filed their version contending mainly that the complaint is not maintainable. The opposite party has not received higher premium from the complainant for his Maruti Car bearing Reg.No.KL.01.L.1233. The opposite party had issued a comprehensive policy commencing from 17/8/2000 to 16/8/2001 and the premium collected is Rs.2,768/-. But at the time of renewal of the above policy the complainant submitted in writing that he wanted only third party policy and hence the above policy is renewed as an Act policy valid from 17/8/2001 to 16/8/2002. The premium collected was only Rs. 425/-. The premium payable in respect of different class of vehicles are statutorily fixed by the Tariff Advisory Committee. The premium rates provided by the Tariff Advisory Committee are minimum rates. This opposite party has not received any higher amount from the complainant. Hence the opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint.


 

3. On the contentions raised the following issues arise for consideration:


 

          1. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

          2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          3. Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?


 

4. Points (i) to (iii): On going through the pleadings it is found that the main grievance of the complainant is that excess amount has been collected from him as compared to other Insurance Companies. The opposite party in his version contended that the premium payable in respect of different class of vehicles are statutorily fixed by the Tariff Advisory Committee. The premium rates provided by the Tariff Advisory Committee are minimum rates. The opposite party further contend that loading on Tariff premium by 100% is permissible for adverse claims experience of the vehicle insured and this opposite party loaded Rs.500/- each for the last two renewals due to the adverse claim experience of the insured vehicle, therefore the allegation that more premium has been received by this opposite party from the complainant than the other Companies under GIC is not correct.


 

5. The complainant has not raised any allegation with regard to deficiency in service. The dispute is with regard to exorbitant amount charged by way of premium. The complainant is challenging the premium fixed by the Tariff Advisory Committee. This is a clear case of question of pricing and the question of pricing cannot be gone into by the Consumer Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. This being the settled position we hereby hold that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.


 


 

In the result the complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to seek his remedy, if any, before appropriate court of law.


 

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.


 


 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 16th day of February, 2009.


 


 

S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.


 


 


 


 

 

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.


 


 


 

BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER.

ad.


 


 


 


 

O.P.No.377/2003

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness: Nil

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Copy of certificate-cum-policy schedule of vehicle No.KL 01-L-1233 dt. 17/8/2003

P2 : Policy schedule dated 17/8/2002


 

III. Opposite party's witness: Nil

IV. Opposite party's documents:


 

D1 : Copy of certificate-cum-policy schedule with total premium for Rs.3742.


 

D2 : Certificate-cum-policy schedule with total premium for Rs.2,768/-.


 

D3 : Copy of certificate-cum-policy schedule with total premium for Rs.425/-

D4 : Copy of policy schedule renewed from 17/8/2002 to 16/8/2003 with total premium for Rs.1,181/-

D5 : Copy of certificate cum policy schedule with premium collected as Rs.1,215/-


 

D6 : Copy of petition OP-(M.V) No.1756/99,MACT,Tvpm.


 

 PRESIDENT.




......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad