DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.316/2010
DR. AMIT ANAND
R/01/49 GROUND FLOOR,
SUNDER VIHAR, PASCHIM VIHAR,
NEW DELHI-110087
….Complainant
Versus
J K M MAKFIN PVT. LTD.
B-33, LAJPAT NAGAR-II,
NEW DELHI-110024
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
GE PLAZA, AIRPORT ROAD,
YERWADA, PUNE-411006
….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 12.05.2010
Date of Order : 08.08.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal
1. Briefly put Complainant purchased an insurance policy from J.K.M Makfin Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as OP-1) on 27.01.2009 and paid Rs.6,600/- to the representative of OP-1 for renewal of policy in respect of his Hyundai Accent car. Complainant was issued a cover note bearing no. BZ0801301817 for Rs.7,108/- dated 15.01.2009.
2. It is stated that the aforesaid cover note was issued for Rs.7,108/-, whereas Complainant paid Rs.6,600/- as the Complainant was told that Rs.508/- shall be paid by the agent out of his discount amount. Thereafter, Complainant received Policy no. OG-09-1101-1801-00025411 dated 29.01.2009 from Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as OP-2), where it was clearly mentioned against the remarks ‘Shortfall of Rs.508/- Adjusted in Discount’.
3. It is further stated that Complainant received copy of another policy bearing no. OG-09-1101-1801-000290450 dated 14.03.2009 from OPs. On enquiry Complainant was told that the second policy was issued due to technical reasons. After few days Complainant received yet another policy no. OG-09-1101-1801-00029050 and was shocked to find that the policy was ‘Canceled’.
4. Complainant enquired regarding the same and was informed by OP-2 vide letter dated 20.03.2009 , that since cheque dated 01.01.2009 of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur for an amount of Rs.508/- was returned uncleared. Reason mentioned for non clearance was ‘No Account’. Therefore, the contract of insurance is void-ab-initio in view of the cheque dishonor. It is stated that Complainant never issued the cheque in question to OP-2, therefore, the Complainant was surprised the said cheque was linked with the policy cover note of the Complainant. He took up the matter with OPs and was informed vide mail dated 23.03.2009 that policy was in vogue, which he took it as confirmation.
5. Thereafter, complainant on 02.01.2010 asked OP-2 to renew his policy and to his shock was informed that his previous policy stood cancelled. It is further stated that OP-2 would not have entertained the claim of the Complainant in case of any mis-happening during that period . It is next averred that even after lapse of one year, complainant had to face lot of problem due to the above stated mistake of OP-2. Complainant had to lose ‘No Claim Bonus of 45%’ i.e Rs.4,136/- for insurance of his car.
6. It is also stated that OP after receiving several notices sent a cheque of Rs.6,600/- to the Complainant on 23.02.2010, however, interest upon this amount is still due and OP is liable to pay the same. Aggrieved by the circumstances above, Complainant approached this commission to direct OP to pay sum of Rs.15,541/- to the Complainant @24% per annum. Additionally it is prayed that OP be directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs11,000/- towards cost of litigation.
7. OP-2 filed his written version stating inter alia that cover note bearing no. BZ0801301817 for Rs.7,108/- was issued to complainant subject to balance payment of Rs.508/-. It is specifically denied that the balance of Rs. 508/- was to be paid by OP-1. It is next sated that policy no. OG-09-1101-1801-00025411 was issued on the understanding that the balance payment of Rs.508/- will be made by the Complainant. When the cheque of Rs.508/- bounced, OP-2 issued policy No. OG-09-1101-1801-00029050 dated 14.03.2009 intimating the Complainant that due to cheque bouncing the policy stands cancelled and the contract of insurance is void-ab-initio. It is reiterated that on cheque bouncing of Rs.508/- the policy stood cancelled due to the own latches of the Complainant.
8. It is further stated that OP-2 had refunded amount of Rs.6,600/- paid by the Complainant on 23.02.2010, therefore the complainant is not entitled for any interest on the amount. In view of the facts above, it is prayed that complaint be dismissed with heavy and exemplary cost.
9. OP-1 was issued notice; as none appeared on behalf of OP-1, it was proceeded against exparte on 07.09.2011. Rejoinder is filed on behalf of the Complainant. Evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments are filed on behalf of complainant and OP-2. Submissions made on behalf of complainant are heard.
10. After having perused the material placed before us, it is noticed that the Cover Note No.BZ0801301817, Annexure C-1 (Colly) provided by OP-2 mentions in its remarks that ‘Shortfall of Rs.508/- adjusted in discount’. OP-2 in its written statement is found silent on this aspect. Moreover ,OP-2 has not been able to establish the fact that the cheque of Rs.508/- which bounced was issued by the Complainant towards the policy in question. Therefore we are of the opinion that OP-2 after having adjusted Rs 508/- in discount cannot be allowed to go back and cancel the policy stating it to be void-ab-initio..
11. It is seen that vide the e-mail dated 23.03.2009 , OP-2 has stated that policy is in vogue. Complainant was not duly informed that his policy had been ‘cancelled’. Complainant was rather kept in dark for about one year about the status of policy. It was only when he asked for renewal on 02.01.2010, he was told that his policy stood cancelled. It is also seen that OP refunded the amount of Rs.6,600/- on 23.02.2010 i.e about one year after receiving the said payment.
12. Therefore, this commission is of the opinion that OP-2 is deficient to the extent that the complainant was not informed clearly that his policy stood cancelled, thus putting the Complainant, his family and his vehicle under risk for full one year. The casual approach of OP-2 put the life of Complainant, his family and his vehicle without a risk cover. This was gross deficiency in service. Therefore as the premium paid by the complainant has already been refunded and the complainant met with no physical harm, we think ends of justice would meet if OP-2 compensates the Complainant for mental agony and harassment.
13. Accordingly OP-2 is directed to pay Rs 20,000/- towards mental agony and harassment, within 03 months from the date of order, failing which OP-2 shall pay Rs.20,000/- @4% from the date of institution of the complaint till realization.
File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties as per rules. Order be uploaded on the website.
