BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI

                        Consumer Complaint No.330 of 2014

                                 Date of institution:          16.05.2014

                                                Date of Decision:              28.05.2015

Harjit Singh son of Darshan Singh, resident of 1035, Phase-10, Mohali.

    ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Joshi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Showroom & Workshop, C-117, Industrial Focal Point, Phase-7, Mohali through its Manager/Owner.

2.     United India Insurance Company Limited, SCO 357-358, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its Manager/Owner.

………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.

Present:    None for the complainant.

Shri Rajesh Verma, counsel for OP No.1.

Shri P.S. Bedi, counsel for OP No.2

(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)

ORDER

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for issuance of following directions to the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’):

(a)    to refund him Rs.1,24,270/- with interest @ 24% per annum from 20.12.2013 till realization.

(b)    to pay him Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

        (c)    to pay him Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

                The complainant’s case is that he purchased Hyundai i-20 car from OP No.1 on 12.05.2012.  At the time of sale of the car, OP No.1 got it insured with Tata AIG Insurance Company from 25.05.2012 to 24.05.2013 vide cover note Ex.C-3.  OP No.1 thereafter shifted the insurance of the vehicle from Tata AIR to United India Insurance Company vide cover note Ex.C-5 valid from 25.05.2013 to 24.05.2014. The vehicle hit a tree at Phase-7 Mohali on 04.10.2013 and he got repaired the vehicle by paying an amount of Rs.1,24,270/ to  OP No.1  vide bill Ex.C-6. At that time OP No.1 assured the complainant that the entire amount would be refunded to him as the vehicle has been insured with OP No.2 through it. OP No.1 also got signed some documents and blank papers from the complainant.  Now OP Nos.1 and 2 have refused to refund the amount. The complainant sent legal notice to the OPs on 03.08.2013 but no reply was given by the OPs. Non refund of the amount is an act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             OP No.1 in the written statement has pleaded in the preliminary objections that the complainant has suppressed material facts. When the complainant approached OP No.1 for repair of the vehicle he was informed that his claim has been made as no claim by OP No.2 as there was no contract between the complainant and OP No.2 as the payment of premium paid by the complainant was dishonoured.  The fact of non payment of premium was very much in the knowledge of the complainant. Inspite of this the complainant gave consent for starting repair work of his vehicle.  He signed the consent on the job card on 20.10.2013.  On merits, it is pleaded that after expiry of previous insurance from TATA AIG, the complainant got insured his vehicle from OP No.2 through OP No.1. However, the premium payment cheque was dishonoured. Thus, OP No.2 had no contractual liability of policy qua the vehicle.   Once there is no valid contract of insurance there is no liability to pay the claim by the OPs under the policy.  Thus, denying any deficiency in service on its part, OP No.1 has sought dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP No.2 has pleaded in the preliminary objections that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint. The complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious. The complainant issued cheque dated 30.04.2013 for Rs.15,872/- for payment of premium in favour of the OP No.2 but the said cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The complainant was duly intimated regarding dishonour of cheque vide letter dated 04.06.2013 sent through registered post on 07.06.2013.  Thus the complainant had no privity of contract of insurance with OP No.2.  The complainant had failed to deposit the insurance premium with OP No.2. The cover note issued by OP No.2 was valid only for 60 days.  Thus, denying any deficiency in service on its part, OP No.2 has also sought dismissal of the complaint against it.

4.             Despite availing couple of opportunities the complainant had not tendered his evidence. Thus his evidence was closed by order on 30.10.2014.

5.             Evidence of OP No.1 consists of affidavit of Sanjay Minhas, its authorized person Ex.OP-1/1.

6.             Evidence of OP No.2 consists of affidavit of Dinesh Goel, Assistant Manager Ex.OP-2/1 & copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to OP-6.

7.             We have heard learned counsel for the OPs and have gone through their written arguments.  However, neither any written arguments have been filed by the complainant nor anybody turned up to address oral arguments.

8.             The grievance of the complainant is that the vehicle in question has been duly insured with OP No.2 and after the accident of the vehicle he has incurred Rs.1,24,270/- vide invoice dated 20.12.2013 and the claim for reimbursement of the said amount has been preferred to the OPs and the same has not been honoured by the OPs. Therefore, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

9.             Both the OPs have denied that on the day of accident the vehicle was not duly insured with them and there is no privity to the contract with the complainant. Hence, there is nothing due from them to the complainant. 

10.           The complainant has not produced the insurance policy to show his claim and indemnification by insurance company i.e. OP No.2. As per OPs the complainant has admittedly submitted the proposal form alongwith premium by way of cheque dated 30.04.2013. However, on presentation the said cheque has been dishonoured vide memo Ex.OP-2 and the complainant was informed accordingly vide Ex.OP-4 letter dated 04.06.2013. Thereafter, the complainant has never approached for purchase of insurance policy. Since the complainant has never paid the premium, therefore, no policy was issued to him. Thus in the absence of any insurance policy with respect to the vehicle in question, having been issued by OP No.2, the OPs are not liable to pay any claim  as raised by the complainant

11.           In view of above discussion, the complaint being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.     

May 28, 2015.     

                                                                    (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)

                                                                                  President

(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)

Member