Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/304/2014

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., - Complainant(s)

Versus

J. ANNAL SANTHAKUMARI - Opp.Party(s)

ELVEERA RAVINDRAN

01 Jul 2022

ORDER

 IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

                        BEFORE :       Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH               PRESIDENT

                                                Thiru R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                   MEMBER

                        

F.A.NO.304/2014

(Against order in CC.NO.62/2011 on the file of the DCDRC, Nagapattinam)

 

      DATED THIS THE 1^st DAY OF JULY 2022       

 

1.     Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

        G.E.Plaza Airport Road

        Yerwada, Pune – 411 006

 

2.     Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

        No.15, Kelaman Complex                                    M/s. Elveera Ravindran

        1^st Floor, Saradha College Main Road                          Counsel for

        Alagapuram, Salem                                     Appellants / 2 & 3 Opposite parties

 

                                                         Vs.

 

1.       J.Annal Santhakumari

          No.7/4, Bungalow Club Road                              In person

          Velipalayam, Nagapattinam  ct.                   1^st  Respondent/ Complainant

 

2.       S.K.S. Automobiles

          No.2/152, Omalur Main Road (NH7)

          Mangalam Post, Jagir Reddipatty

          Salem – 636 302

 

3.       Indian Overseas Bank                                R2 & R3 Served called absent

          Neela South Street

          Nagapattinam         

 

4.       Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

          No.201-208, Crystal Plaza                                  M/s. R.Vijaya Kamala       

          Opp. Infinity Mall, Link Road                            Counsel for 4^th Respondent

          Andheri (West) Mumbai – 400 058    2 to 4 Respondents/ 1,4&5 opposite parties

 

          The 1^st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.8.7.2014 in CC.No.62/2011.

 

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally today, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for appellant and R4 and on perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order in the open court:

 

ORDER

 

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH,  PRESIDENT  (Open court)

 

1.       This appeal has been filed as against the order dt.8.7.2014 passed by the District Commission, Nagapattinam in CC.No.62/2011 by allowing the complaint filed by the 1^st Respondent/ Complainant herein. 

 

2.       The appellants are 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties before the District Commission.  1^st Respondent is the complainant.  2^nd to 4^th Respondents are 1^st , 4^th and 5^th opposite parties before the District Commission.  For the sake of convenience the parties shall be referred as per ranking before the District Commission. 

 

3.       The brief facts which are necessary to decide the appeal is as follows:

           The case of the complainant is that the 1^st opposite party is the dealer of Mahindra make vehicles.  The complainant approached one of the agents of the 1^st opposite party for the purchase of four wheeler vehicle.  The agent explained about various models of their vehicles and their performances.  The 1^st opposite  party’s quotation clearly shows the colour, vehicle model and description as  Bolero VL B.S.III, and the price of the vehicle as Rs.637801/-, for insurance Rs.21,207/- Registration and handling charges Rs.4000/- and a total of Rs.731788/-.   Taking note of the quotation, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.10000/- as advance.  The balance amount shall be payable at the time of taking delivery of the vehicle.  The complainant had approached the Indian Overseas Bank for loan.  The bank authorities, after scrutinising the loan application, sanctioned the loan of Rs.5 lakhs.  The balance of Rs.221788/- was deposited by the complainant.  Thereafter the Indian Overseas Bank had issued Demand Draft dt.4.12.2010 for a sum of Rs.700581/- after deducting the premium amount for insurace.  But the 1^st opposite party without the knowledge and consent of the complainant, reinsured the vehicle in Bajaj Allianz Group on 24.12.2010 for a sum of Rs.21,924/-, while delivering the vehicle.  The complainant approached the 1^st opposite party for cancellation of the re-insurance and for return of the money.  But the opposite parties 1 and 3 did not take any interest to refund the premium.  Hence the complainant issued lawyer’s notice on 1.8.2011.  But the opposite parties 1 to 3 did not send any reply.  Hence he had filed this complaint praying for refund of Rs.21,924/- alongwith cost. 

 

3.       The 1^st and 4^th opposite parties were set exparte before the District Commission.  

 

4.       The case of the complainant was resisted by the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties by filing version stating that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties to invoke the jurisdiction of this consumer fora.  There is no oral or written request from the complainant for cancellation of the insurance. The opposite parties never received any legal notice.  Thus they sought for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

5.       In order to prove their respective cases proof affidavits were filed by the parties alongwith documents, which were marked as Ex.A1 to A7 on the side of the complainant.  There was no document filed on the side of the opposite party. 

6.       The District Commission, after analyzing the evidence has come to the conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 2 and 3 in not refunding the premium amount.  Thus directed the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties to repay Rs.21924/- and also a sum of Rs.3000/- towards cost of litigation.  Aggrieved over the order impugned, the present complaint has been filed. 

 

7.       When the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for appellant submitted that 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties have not received any premium amount from the 1^st opposite party and that the complainant himself had admitted in the complaint that the 4^th opposite party/ Indian Overseas Bank had issued DD dt.4.12.2010 for Rs.700581/- after deducting the premium amount for insurance.  Therefore, it is clear that they have not paid any amount for insurance.  In fact the  Indian Overseas Bank, from whom the complainant had availed loan, after deducting the premium amount, had issued cheque for Rs.21924/-, to the 5^th opposite party and taken the policy.  Therefore, the question of cancelling the policy does not arise in this case.  If a policy is sought to be cancelled under GR Rules 24-B of the Motor Tariff Rules, then the intimation for refund ought to have been given before the expiry of the policy period.  But in this case no intimation was given, hence no refund was payable.  Moreover, she was given an ample opportunity to return the policy, but she had not returned the policy.  Therefore, the question of deficiency of service does not arise. 

 

8.       Keeping the submissions in mind, carefully gone through the records.

9.       Having considered the submissions made, we find that it is the main defence of the appellants that they have not received the premium amount from the 1^st opposite party.   A perusal of the complaint would establish that the complainant herself had admitted that the 4^th opposite party had released the loan amount after deducting the premium for insurance.  Further on the side of the complainant also no document has been produced to show that they have made a request to the appellants/ 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties to cancel the policy. Therefore, it is clear that the complainant had not proved that she had paid for the insurance to the appellants/ 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.  But without considering these aspects, the Forum below merely based on the averments made in the complaint, has allowed the complaint, which is not legally sustainable.  The allegation of deficiency against the appellants have not been proved by any tangible evidence.  Accordingly, this appeal deserves to be allowed.

 

10.     In the result, the appeal is allowed, by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Nagapattinam in CC.No.62/2011 dt.8.7.2014, and the complaint is dismissed.   No order as to cost throughout.

          Registry is directed to discharge the mandatory deposit alongwith accrued interest in favour of the appellants.

                     

               

 

  R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                               R. SUBBIAH

               MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT