BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1596/2016

DATED ON THIS THE 17^th November 2017

Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT  

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                   

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

    3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                

                                            B.E., LLB., PGDCLP,    - MEMBER

Sri M.C.DEVAKUMAR,

Member

1.     The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986, against the opposite parties, alleging deficiency in service and seeking a direction to pay Rs.40,700/- along with interest at 24% p.a. and to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages with cost and such other reliefs.
2.     The complainant issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.21,357/- on 29.03.2016, towards renewal of insurance coverage of his car, favouring opposite party No.1.  The damaged car got repaired with opposite party No.3 on 14.07.2016, who made the insurance claim from opposite party No.1.  On receipt of intimation of dishonour of the cheque and cancellation of policy, from opposite party No.1, the opposite party No.3 demanded and collected a total sum of Rs.40,700/- and released the car.  The complainant alleged the non-intimation of dishonour of the cheque for a substantial period as deficiency in service on the part of opposite party Nos.1 and 2.  Hence, the complaint seeking reliefs.
3.    The opposite party No.1 in its version submits, the cheque issued was presented for realisation and the same was returned with an endorsement “Funds insufficient” and letter dated 07.04.2016.  A letter, dated 01.07.2016, was issued to concerned RTO and also to the complainant, stating dishonour of cheque issued towards renewal of insurance coverage and cancellation of the policy. In spite of the same, knowing the facts, the complainant delivered the car for repairs on 14.07.2016 for repairs with opposite party No.3 and made the claims with malafide intention.  As such, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by them.  Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4.     The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 filed a joint version and submits, the complainant does not survive against them and liable to be dismissed.  The insurance policy was null and void for the reason, the cheque issued by the complainant, towards renewal of insurance coverage was dishonoured and as per the intimation of opposite party No.1 only, the repair charges collected from the complainant.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by them and hence prays for dismissal of complaint against them.
5.     To establish the facts, the parties filed their affidavit evidence and relied on several documents.  Written arguments filed and heard the oral submissions respective counsels.  Perused the material on record and posted the matter for orders.  
6.     The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant established the deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by the opposite parties, for non-intimating the facts relating to dishonour of cheque issued towards renewal of insurance policy in respect of his car and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs sought?
2. To What order?

7.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.    Point No.1:- The complainant purchased the car from opposite party No.3 and to cover the insurance through opposite party No.2, issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.21,337/- on 29.03.2016.
9.    The car was delivered for repair with opposite party No.3 on 14.07.2016 and informed, the charges would be claimed under insurance coverage from opposite party No.1.  The opposite party No.3 demanded for repair charges, as the insurance company i.e. opposite party No.1 rejected the claims due to dishonour of the cheque issued towards renewal of insurance coverage.
10. Surprised by the rejection of the claim, alleged negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party Nos.1 and 2 for non-intimation of cancellation of insurance policy coverage due dishonour of the cheque issued for renewal of the insurance policy until 14.07.2016.  Hence, the complaint and sought for the reliefs.
11. Opposite party No.1 contended that, the cheque issued by complainant on 29.03.2016 drawn on State Bank of Mysore was presented on the same day for realisation, but the same was returned for the reason “Funds insufficient” on 07.04.2016.
12. The cancellation of policy was intimated to the complainant and to the RTO authorities on 01.07.2016 on the grounds of dishonour of the cheque.  Despite of knowing the cancellation of the policy, the car was delivered for repair with opposite party No.3 on 14.07.2016 to make unlawful gain only.  As such, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice and the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs as sought.
13. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 contended that, based on the repudiation of the claim towards expenses of the repair charges of the car, they collected the same from complainant.  As such, there is no deficiency in service on their part and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint against them.
14. On perusal of the material on record, the complainant had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.21,357/-, on 29.03.2016, drawn on State Bank of Mysore, in favour of opposite party No.1, towards consideration for renewal of insurance policy coverage, in respect of his car.  The said cheque was dishonoured by the Bank, for the reason “Funds insufficient” as per the letter dated 07.04.2016.
15. The opposite party No.1 claimed that, it had intimated the complainant and the RTO authorities vide letter dated 01.07.2016, regarding cancellation of the insurance policy, for dishonour of the cheque issued towards consideration for renewal of insurance policy.
16. The complainant established that, there was sufficient amount in his account on 29.03.2016 and 07.04.2016 to honour the cheque.  The opposite party No.1 failed to establish that, they had intimated the complainant, about cancellation of the insurance premium amount prior to 01.07.2016 or until repudiation of the claims towards the repair charges made on 14.07.2016.
17. The complainant relied on judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Civil Appeal No.3589/2012, between United India Insurance Co.Ltd., V/s Laxmamma and others observed that, cancellation of insurance policy after the accident and communication of the same only after occurrence of the accident on the ground of dishonour of the cheque, the insurance company is liable to award the compensation to the claimants.
18. In view of the above discussions, we opine that, cancellation of the insurance policy and repudiation of the subsequent claim by opposite party No.1 was not justified.  As such, the complainant is entitled for amount of Rs.29,260/- paid by him to the opposite party No.3 towards repair charges with interest from opposite party No.1 with compensation for the deficiency in service.  Accordingly, point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.

19. Point No.2:- In view of the observations made in point No.1 above, we proceed to pass the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The opposite party No.1 is hereby directed to pay Rs.29,260/- towards the repair charges with interest at 10% p.a. from the date of this complaint to the complainant within 60 days of this order, failing to comply, shall pay Rs.100/- per day until compliance.
3.  The opposite party No.1 shall pay Rs.3,000/- compensation for the deficiency in service and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant within 60 days of this order.  Failing to comply, the opposite party No.1 shall pay interest at 10% p.a. on the said total sum of Rs.5,000/- until payment made.  
4. In case of default to comply this order, the opposite party No.1 undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
5. The complaint is dismissed against opposite party Nos.2 and 3.
6. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 17^th November 2017)