Case No. CC/ 74/2018
Final Order/Judgment
Sudeb Mitra, President:-
The complaint case as culled out from the complainant reliefs that she purchased a car of Renault India Pvt. Ltd. from the show room of the O.P. no 3 of this case, as reflected in the cause title of this complaint since the O.P. no 3 establishment is the authorized agent of the remaining O.P’s no 1 & 2 of this complaint and the complt’s car bearing Registration no WB 34-AV- 0782 was duly insured.
It is the specific case of the complt. that her said car was insured by the O.P’s no 1&2 through their local agent i.e. the O.P. no 3 of this complaint, against due payment of premium Rs- 9,542/- by the complt. for that purpose to the O.P’s no 1 &2 and O.P’s no 1&2 issued policy certificate in favour of the complt. and that policy of insurance covering for a period from 30.03.2018 to 29.03.2019 in respect of the complt’s car, bearing no 2311202154765700000. The payment of premium was made from the complt’s husbands Bank A/C.
It is contended by the complt. that on 19.05.2018 she had received a notice from the O.P. no 3 dtd. 17.05.2018 and could ascertain that due to non availability of fund in their Bank A/C the instrument issued against the policy was dishonored and consequently policy became inactive. As a result the complt. met with O.P. no 3 on 21.05.2018 and the O.P. no 3 denied to have received any premium amount from the complt. in respect of the insurance of the complt’s car and contended that the policy issued in favour of the complt. stood cancelled. So the complt. for such inconvenience caused to her by the O.P’s couldn’t avail herself of her car facility.
It is contended by the complt. by filing complaint in this case that though she had paid insurance premium in respect of her car to the O.P’s no 1&2 through the O.P. no 3 of this complaint and the O.P’s no 1&2 had received the same yet vide letter dtd. 17.05.2018 the O.P. no 3 claimed that due to non availability of fund in their Bank A/C, the instrument issued upon the concerned bank for encashment of premium of insurance got dishonored and as a result the insurance policy of the complt’s car became inactive.
Contd…3
-3-
It is asserted that the said notice dtd. 17.05.2018 issued upon her by the O.P. no 3 lacks jurisdiction since baseless specially when the O.P’s no 1&2 subsequently issued policy certificate to her in respect of her car and the complt. could get a letter from the O.P. no 2 dtd. 12.06.2018 admitting that payment of premium in respect of the complt’s car, made by the complt. towards the O.P’s have been received by the O.P. no 2.
By filing this complaint the complt. prayed for direction of this commission upon the O.P’s to withdraw their notice served upon her dtd. 17.05.2018, so served upon her by 17.05.2018. She has also prayed for direction upon the O.P’s no 1&2 for withdrawal of their notice dtd. 07.04.2018, served upon the complt. through the constituted attorney of the O.P’s no 1&2, by which those O.P’s intimated her that the premium remittance made by her against the insurance policy for her car couldn’t be realized lending ground for treating the policy as void from inception. By filing this complaint, the complt. has prayed for other consequential reliefs as reflected categorically in the prayer portion of this complaint filed by her.
The gist of the W.V. filed in this case by the O.P’s no 1&2 revealed that initially the complt. got her vehicle insured from these O.P’s for a period from 30.03.2018 to 29.03.2019 by paying premium for insurance of Rs- 9,542/- through cheque from her husband’s Bank A/C and policy certificate bearing no 2311202154765700000 dtd. 24.03.2018 was issued in her favour through the O.P. no 3 being the agents of the O.P. no 1&2 but as the said cheque was dishonored, the complt. was informed vide letter dtd. 17.05.2018 about the fact of dishonoredment of cheque issued for payment of insurance premium of the complt’s car and the consequent effect of such dishonouredment of the cheque.
It is the contention of the O.P’s no 1&2, as their filed W.V. revealed that on encashuant of the said cheque the O.P’s no 1&2 issued fresh insurance policy bearing no 2311202154765700003 for the same period i.e. from 30.03.2018 to 29.03.2019 in respect of the complt’s particular car for which insurance was sought for by the complt. from the O.P’s and on 01.09.2018 O.P’s intimation on that score has received by the complt. on 01.09.2018.
By filing the W.V., the O.P’s no 1&2 prayed for dismissal of this complaint case for lack of cause of action.
The gist of the W.V. filed by the O.P. no 3 revealed that the O.P. no 3 supported all the material particulars as reflected in the complaint case and the W.V. filed by the O.P’s no
Contd…4
-4-
1&2 and corroborating the same, O.P. no 3 has contended that on 29.03.2018 before the expiry of the complt’s car’s existing insurance policy purchased by the complt. from Reliance India Gen. Ins. Co., the complt’s husband came to the O.P. no 3’s show room and swapping the card on the point of sale terminal of the O.P. no 3 paid cash of Rs- 9,542/- for insurance policy of the vehicle and O.P. no 3 presuming that such fund has been transferred to their A/C, drew a cheque in favour of the O.P. no 2 and deposited the said cheque on HDFC Bank having deposite references no 0000324495 dtd. 24.032018 on Dena Bank, Beckbagan branch Kolkata and O.P. no 2 issued a money receipt as insurance company, acknowledging the receipt of the said cheque from the O.P. no 3 and issued insurance policy for the complt’s car for the period from 30.03.2018 to 29.03.2019 vide policy certificate no 2311202154765700000.
It is the O.P. no 3’s contention that it was later alleged that said cheque was dishonored by O.P. no 2’s banker and as a result auto generated notice for cancellation of policy was issued by the O.P’s no 1&2 addressed to the complt. vide letter dtd. 07.04.2018.
The O.P. no 3 by filing W.V. contended that on subsequent presentation of the said cheque by the O.P’s no 1&2 at the instance of the O.P. no 3, the said cheque was duly honoured and the premium amount of the car could be duly and fully realized by the O.P’s no 1&2 i.e. insures of the complainant’s car and fresh insurance certificate for the complt’s car was issued by the O.P’s no 1&2 covering the same period for which the insurance in respect of the complt’s car was sought for by the complt. i.e. from 30.03.2018 to 29.03.2019 and for this reason of the O.P. no 3 also pressed for the dismissal of this complaint for it’s lacking cause of action and for lack of deficiency in service, as alleged by the complt.
On the basis of the contents of the complaint and the W.V.’s both, the following points for consideration/issues have been prepared to reach the decisive findings over these issues of contentions of the contesting parties of this complaint.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION / ISSUES
- Is this complainant a consumer as per Sec 2 (i) (d) (ii) of the C.P. Act of 1986?
- Has this Commission Jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the O.P’s any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant and are they liable in any way?
- Whether the complt. is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
Contd…5
-5-
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the available materials on record carefully, perused the documents furnished by the contesting parties of this complaint case and heard the argument advanced by the O.P’s but the complt. hasn’t turned up to advance arguments. Since this complaint is coming from 2018, so the B.N.A submitted by the complt. has been treated as the reflection of complt’s argument in writing in this complaint.
Issues No 1&2:-
These two issues, being the determining factors to ascertain the necessity to discuss the other issues, are takes up together at first for discussion.
The complainant had paid premium, as determined by the O.P’s for providing insurance coverage to the complt’s purchased car, by the O.P’s and the O.P’s have, on receipt of premium for providing insurance coverage to the complt’s car from 30.03.2018 to 29.03.2019, had issued insurance certificate from their end, to provide by them the insurance coverage of the complt’s car, for the stipulated period i.e. from 30.03.2018 to 29.03.2019.
On the basis of that relationship prevalent for that period of one year i.e. from 30.03.2018 to 29.03.2019, the O.P’s were the service providers to the beneficiary complt. in respect of her car, by providing, insurance coverage to the complt. for her insured car and during that period on 11.07.2018 this complaint was filed by the complainant against the O.P’s.
So in consonance with the scopes of clause (ii) of sec 2 (i)(d) of the C.P. Act of 1986, the complt. has been consumer of the O.P’s service, intending to avail herself of the O.P’s service of providing the complt. (beneficiary) the insurance coverage of the car. So as the complt. was the consumer of the O.P., so this issue no 1 is decided in favour of the complainant.
So far as the issue no 2 is concerned, the material facts revealed from the case record, the addresses of complt’s and O.P’s no 1 and 3 as to their residence and place of works respectively at the time of the filing of this complt. and basis of the claims laid lend cogent grounds, in consonance with the scopes of Sec 11 of the C.P. Act of 1986 that this Commission has both pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to deal with this complaint case.
Contd…6
-6-
So this issue no 2 is also decided in favour of the complainant and in thus disposed of.
Issues No 3&4:-
Both these two issues are now taken up for discussion at a time as the same are inter related and as the decision of the issue no 3 will be a guiding factor to come do the conclusion in respect of the fate of the issue no 4 of this complaint case.
Besides in order to avoid prolixity and repetition and for the sake of brevity and convenience both these issues are taken up for discussion at a time.
From the available materials on record, documents furnished by the contesting parties of this case it appears that the complt. is admittedly the owner of the car referred in this case bearing no WB34AV0782 and the certificate of registration reveals that the registration of the said vehicle and tax paid for the said vehicle are paid up to 17.04.2031 and 21.04.2021 is respectively. It is also forthcoming primafacie that the complt. purchased the vehicle/car, as admitted by her on 28.03.2016 and at first vide Insurance Policy no 9911972311006638 under Reliance General Insurance Company the complt. had her car insured for the period from 30.03.2017 to 29.03.2018 and thereafter vide insurance policy no 2311202154765700000 under H.D.F.C. ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. the complt. had her car insured for the period from 30.03.2018 to 29.03.2019.
From the available materials on record it appears that for obtaining the insurance coverage of the complt’s car for the period from 30.03.2018 to 29.03.2019, the complt’s husband had approached the O.P. no 3 at the said O.P’s show room and paid Rs- 9542/- to the O.P. no 3 for obtaining the premium insurance coverage of the complt’s car for the period from 30.03.2018 to 29.03.2019 under the O.P’s no 1&2 of this complaint case and the said payment of premium was made by the complt’s husband, to the O.P. no 3 on behalf of the complt. by swipe of a card in the counter of the O.P. no 3 and not by issuance of any cheque and the O.P. no 3, on the basis of electronic transfer of that premium of Rs- 9542/- given for the insurance coverage of the complt’s car under the O.P’s no 1&2 for the period from 30.03.2018 to 29.03.2019, had drew a cheque in favour of the O.P’s no 1&2 on 24.03.2018 and procured money receipt from the O.P’s no 1&2 on that score of such payment of premium made by cheque by him(O.P. no 3). No contrary evidence is forthcoming to refute this.
Contd…7
-7-
It is appearing from the submissions of the O.P’s no 1&2 besides O.P. no 3 that the said cheque dtd. 24.03.2018 on being presented by the O.P’s no 1&2 was dishonored and the O.P. no 3 , on being intimated by the O.P’s no 1&2 on that score, requested the O.P’s no 1&2 to present the said cheque afresh and when the said cheque was presented afresh on 23.05.2018, the said cheque amount could be encashed but since on first presentation of the said cheque on 24.03.2018, the same was not entertained in favour of the O.P’s no 1&2, the O.P’s no 1&2 had sent letter dtd. 07.04.2018 to the complt., intimating the complt. that since the premium remittance required for providing insurance coverage of the complt’s car could not be realized, the insurance policy for her car given by the O.P’s no 1&2 should be treated as void from inception.
No iota of evidence of any form could be provided by the complt. to refute the above referred facts forthcoming from the submissions of the O.P. side.
It is also found from the materials available and contentions of the O.P’s of this complaint that when the O.P’s no 1&2 could encash the cheque of Rs- 9542/- paid on behalf of the complt., the O.P’s no 1&2 had issued fresh insurance policy against the complt’s vehicle/car WB34AV0782 vide policy no 2311202154765700003 issued on 27.03.2018 for the same period which tallies exactly with the period for which the first policy of insurance coverage for the complt’s vehicle was given i.e. from 30.03.2018 to 29.03.2019.
This shows that the moment the previously bounced cheque, given to the O.P’s no 1&2, in respect complt’s cars premium for insurance coverage of the said car, was encashed, the O.P’s no 1&2 without avoiding their responsibility provided uninterrupted insurance coverage of the complt’s car since of the initiation of effectuating insurance coverage of the complt’s purchased car.
In the premises there is no ground to hold that the complt. had suffered any kind of loss of any nature at the instance of the O.P’s as the complt’s purchased car remained in uninterrupted insurance coverage of the O.P’s no 1&2 from the point of time of the O.P’s undertaking the responsibility to provide insurance coverage to the complt’s relevant car.
In this backdrop, the complt’s prayer to direct the O.P’s no 1&2 to withdraw their notice dtd. 07.04.2018 served upon her has got no merit to be entertained, as the said notice had been reduced redundant on O.P’s providing uninterrupted insurance coverage to the complt. for her car.
Contd…8
-8-
The complt. couldn’t furnish any document to show that she was given any notice by the O.P. no 3 dtd. 17.05.2018 reflecting thereby that by the said notice, the O.P. no 3 had intimated the complt. that due to non availability of fund, the insurance policy of the complt’s vehicle sustained inactivity. So the question of directing the O.P. no 3 to withdraw its said notice has no merit to provide positive consideration, in favour of the complt.
The complt. couldn’t produce any substantive, cogent evidence to establish her claim that by using private cars instead of her owned car she had to incur unnecessary expenses as a result of the failure of the O.P’s to provide insurance coverage to her owned car, even though she had paid the premium for obtaining the insurance coverage of her car from the O.P’s. In fact the O.P’s concerned had kept the complt’s car all along under the insurance coverage in respect of the entire period for which insurance coverage was sought for by the complt. for her car, from the O.P’s.
Accordingly, there appears nothing significant to hold that the complt. was put to suffer any kind of deficiency in service by the O.P’s and no convincing material could be produced by the complainant in the backdrop of the factual matrix of this complaint to vindicate what loss the complainant had in fact sustained to seek the consequential reliefs for deficiency in service, mental pain or to seek litigation cost, specially when the O.P’s no 1&2 had provided insurance coverage to the complt’s vehicle/car, after the encashment of the dishonored cheque, issued to provide premium of insurance coverage of the complt’s car.
Accordingly the complaint case, for the reasons as explained above, discuss no positive consideration and being meritless the complt’s case fails.
Fees paid are proper.
Hence it is …
ORDERED
That the instant complaint case be and the same stands dismissed on contest but without cost, against the O.P’s of this complaint.
Let plain copies of this judgment/order be supplied to the contesting parties of this complaint case by hand/Regd. Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rules & law.
