Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressed Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 605.
Instituted on : 12.12.2018.
Decided on : 13.10.2021.
Ram Chander age 50 years s/o Sh. Asha Ram, R/o H.No.479 Sector-3, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Iffco-tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Rajendra Kinha Tower, IInd Floor, Nr. Bajrang Bhawan, Main Delhi Road, Jhang Colony, Rohtak-124001, (Through its Branch Manager/Authorised Representative).
- Iffco-tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. c/o Hafed District Office, SCO 19-20, Ground Floor, Part-1, Sector-12, Karnal, Haryana-132001,(Through its Branch Manager/Authorised Representative).
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Argued: Sh.Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.R.K.Behl, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that complainant was registered owner of
tractor Swaraj 855 registration No. HR-12N-1713 and the same was sold out by the complainant. On 20.01.2018 the insurance agent of complainant had purchased an insurance policy bearing no.25114264 dated 22.01.2018 to 21.01.2019 by mistake and the premium was paid Rs.8853/-. On 01.02.2018 the complainant sent a written request to the opposite parties for cancellation of above said policy and to refund the premium amount i.e.Rs.8853/-. On 19.03.2018 the opposite party refunded Rs.737/- in the Account no.35950705657 of agent Smt. Parmila Devi whereas the opposite party should have refunded Rs.8853/-. Complainant requested the opposite parties so many times to refund the alleged amount but to no effect. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs.8116/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that a commercial vehicle insurance policy for the period 22.01.2018 to 21.01.2019 was issued by agent Ms. Parmila Devi in the name of Mr. Ram Chander with respect to his vehicle bearing no.HR12N1713 against the premium amount of Rs.8853/- to the answering opposite parties. On receipt of the cancellation letter, the answering opposite party has refunded the premium amount of Rs.737/- on 19.03.2018 as per terms and conditions of the policy. In this case the insured did not provide the other original certificate of insurance for the same period for cancellation, therefore the Third Party full premium was retained by the answering opposite parties as per GR-24-A(c) of Motor Tariff and own damage premium was paid as per GR-12. Opposite parties have already refunded the amount after deductions as per rules. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and has closed his evidence on dated 29.01.2020. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R8 and closed his evidence on dated 05.01.2021.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. At the time of arguments, ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed on record a chit issued by the Registration authority Rohtak in which the detail of vehicle no.HR-12N-1713 has been mentioned. As per this report issued by the registration authority Rohtak, the NOC of the vehicle in question has been issued to some registration authority on dated 31.07.2017 and as per complainant the policy of the vehicle has been issued by the respondent on dated 22.01.2018.
6. We have perused document Ex.C2 in which it has been mentioned by the complainant that the agent of the respondent insurance company renewed the policy of tractor without giving any intimation to the complainant. After that he paid the amount of Rs.8853/- to the agent of insurance company and applied for refund of the amount of the policy no.25114264 issued on dated 22.01.2018. After perusal of all the documents we came to the conclusion that agent of insurance company wrongly renewed the policy without obtaining the registration certificate from the complainant or without obtaining the consent of the complainant. After applying for refund of alleged amount, opposite party has only refunded Rs.737/- and has retained the amount of Rs.8116/-. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of respondent insurance company and the opposite parties are liable to refund the amount of premium paid by the complainant after deducting the already refunded amount i.e. Rs.8853/- less Rs.737/- i.e. Rs.8116/- to the complainant.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.8116/-(Rupees eight thousand one hundred and sixteen only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till its realization and shall also pay Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
13.10.2021.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
...............................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
