Tamil Nadu
Ariyalur
CC/28/2018
K.Veeman - Complainant(s)
Versus
Manager, iffco tokio general insurance - Opp.Party(s)
M.G.Balasubramanian
10 Feb 2023
ORDER
Complaint taken on file:13-12-2018
Order delivered on: 10.02.2023
BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ARIYALUR
PRESENT: Dr.V.Ramaraj M.L, Ph.D.,: President
Mr.N.Balu B.A, B.L., Member – I
Mrs.V.Lavanya, B.A., B.L., Member – II
Consumer Complaint No. 28/2018
Friday, the tenth day of February, 2023
Veeman,
Son of Karuppudayaar,
Pillayar Kovil street,
Keelakottakkurichi Post,
Ariyalur – 621715 … Complainant
M.G. Balasubramanian,
Founder, Tamil Nadu Consumer Rights Protection Trust,
4/284, West Street, Thirumanoor, Ariyalur District – 621 715.
… As Agent
-Vs-
1. The General Manager,
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd,
Iffco Bawan, 4th Floor, 128, Habibullah Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.
2. The Inspector of Police,
J1 Police Station, Thirumanoor,
Ariyalur Taluk, Ariyalur District – 621 715.
3. The Administrator,
ACL TVS Agencies, Min Nagar,
JKM Road, Ariyalur – 621 704. … Opposite Parties
Counsel for the 1st Opposite Party : M/s. Arunan
The 2nd opposite party was set exparte on : 25.04.2019.
The 3rd opposite party was set exparte on : 17.10.2019
This complaint having come for final hearing before us on 10/02/2023 and upon perusing the proof affidavit, documents, oral arguments, written arguments filed by the complainant and written version, proof affidavit, documents, written arguments of the 1st opposite party, this commission passed the following:-
ORDER
Pronounced by Mr.N.Balu: Member-I
Adopted by Dr.V.Ramaraj: President & Mrs.V.Lavanya: Member-II
The facts of the complaint in brief:
01. A complaint has been filed stating that due to the deficiency in service, the opposite parties should pay Rs.1, 80 000/- as compensation for the mental agony, economic loss, disruption, physical damage and medical expenses and other reliefs.
02. The complainant is a senior citizen, a differently abled person and a small agriculturist. The complainant purchased a TVS XL 100 CC two wheeler from the 3rd opposite party on payment of Rs.40, 800/- on 23.10.2017 (vide bill No:51875) for his personal use. In the cash receipt, the 3rd opposite party has mentioned the date and the month only without year.
03. The complainant visited a nearby village namely Thirmalapadi on 02.06.2018 at 12.30 p.m. in his TVS XL two wheeler bearing Registration Number TN 61M 3255 to witness the famous Jallikkattu festival that is held on account of the temple function and parked the two wheeler in front of the Panchayat Union Primary school building and locked it. After witnessing the Jallikkattu festival, he returned to the same place and was shocked to see that his two wheeler was missing. He searched in the nearby areas but could not find same.
04. The complainant approached the 2nd opposite party and lodged a complaint attaching a copy of the Registration Certificate and Insurance policy about the theft of his vehicle. The complainant informed the 3rd opposite party about the theft of the vehicle the next day morning as it was late night while lodging the complaint on the date of occurrence. The 3rd opposite party replied that they will inform the same to the insurance company after lodging F.I.R. The date of invoice is mentioned as of 23.10.....(without year). The date of insurance policy is mentioned as 25-10-2017.
05. The complainant submitted a petition to the 1st opposite party on 21.07.2018 and sent all necessary filled in forms and documents on 20.10.2018. The 1st opposite party directed complainant to submit the 13 different documents. The complainant submitted those documents except a certificate from the police.
05. The 2nd opposite party have abnormally delayed to receive the theft complaint from the complainant on 02.06.2018 and after receiving the complaint, the 2nd opposite party neither filed F.I.R nor any C.S.R. Then the complainant filed a complaint under section 156 (2) Cr.P.C on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Ariyalur. As per the direction of the court, the 2nd opposite party registered F.I.R on 08.10.2018. Due to the 2nd opposite party’s deficiency in the service, they were not able to trace the above said stolen vehicle.
06. The 1st opposite party in their letter have asked the complainant to submit all the documents within 7 days. The 2nd opposite party has registered F.I.R with a delay of 125 days and moreover they neither find the vehicle nor issue the Not Traceable Certificate to the complainant. The 3rd opposite party has not taken any steps for the claim.
07. The complainant being senior citizen and differently abled person often falls sick because of the lethargic attitude and high handedness of the opposite parties, has been suffering a lot of mental agony for which he has been taking continuous treatment and has incurred heavy expense too for which the opposite parties shall be held responsible.
08. The complainant prayed to grant the relief the opposite parties should pay Rs.1, 80 000/- as compensation for the mental agony, economic loss, disruption, physical damage and medical expenses and other reliefs.
The facts of Written Versions of the 1st Opposite Party in brief:
09. The complainant purchased an insurance policy from the 1st opposite party for his TVS XL vehicle. After receiving information from the complainant about the alleged theft of the above vehicle, the 1st opposite party sent registered letters to the complainant asking him to produce the documents along with duly filled in form and to give explanation for the delay in giving intimation on 12.07.2018 and on 19.09.2018. As the complainant did not respond, the 1st opposite party sent final notice on 15.11.2018 stating that if the complainant could not produce the necessary documents within 7 days, his claim would be closed. Even after receiving the final notice, the complainant did not choose to submit claim form, necessary documents and the bank details. The complainant has filed this complaint suppressing all the above material facts. There was no negligence on the pat of the 1st opposite party. Since the complainant did not produce the necessary document of Non traceable certificate issued by the police, the claim could not be processed. The 1st opposite party is still ready to process and settle the claim in accord of the complainant if he submits the claim form along with necessary documents. Hence, the 1st opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint.
10. Issues:
On perusal of facts in the complaint, his documents, written version of the first opposite parties, their documents and exploring the status of agent, who is mentioned in the complaint, this commission framed the following issues.
(01) Whether self claiming agent has the locus standi in this complaint?.
(02) Whether the opposite parties have committed any deficiency in service?
(03) If the opposite parties has committed any deficiency in service, whether the complainant be compensated? If yes how much should be paid?
(04) Whether any other remedies are essential? And whether the cost of the litigation is to be imposed on the parties?
Issue No.1
11. Mr. Veeman is named as the complainant in the complaint. Mr. M.G. Balasubramanian, Founder, Tamil Nadu Consumer Rights Protection Trust has been mentioned as an agent in short title and long title. In pleadings of the complaint nowhere was stated that the complainant Veeman appointed an agent. This commission noticed this fact and counsel for the first opposite party also raised questions (in this regard) in his written argument along with a citation. It may be noted that here, the first opposite party has not raised this question in his written version. However, this commission decided that this is an important issue.
12. Whether M.G. Balasubramanian is power agent under a deed of power of attorney? Or representing in the cadre of voluntary consumer associations? Because, his seal shows as Founder, Tamil Nadu Consumer Rights Protection Trust. There is no pleading to answer this question in the complaint. Hence, this commission explored the answer on available records.
13. The power of Attorney deed was not marked by the complainant side and even if it is marked, mere marking is not sufficient without pleading the same. Hence, it is decided that M.G. Balasubramanian is not a power agent under a deed of power of attorney.
14. In this circumstance, this commission made an analysis that whether he represented the cadre of voluntary consumer associations as prescribed in section 12(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The seal of the agent describes as a Trust. According to the citation submitted by the first opposite party in Consumer Complaint Nos. 560 of 2014 & 226, 227, 228, 229, 245, 954, 474, 475, 677, 991, 992, 1226 of 2015 & 132, 133, 160, 679, 792, 796, 797, 861, 968, 1005, 1006, 1078, 1163, 1466, 1198, 1283, 1372, 1395, 1398, 1401, 1411, 1412, 1502, 1619, 1669, 1672, 1681, 1683, 1697, 1700, 1774 of 2016 with IA Nos. 6376 & 11607 /2016, National Consumer Disputes redressal Commission decided that “A Trust cannot be said to be a Voluntary Consumer Association within the meaning of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act” (05.05.2017). It may be noted that here, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India decided that it is clear that a Trust is not a person and therefore not a consumer. Consequently, it cannot be a complainant and cannot file a consumer dispute in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3560 OF 2008 on March 7, 2017. Hence, it is decided that M.G. Balasubramanian can’t represent the cadre of voluntary consumer associations as prescribed in section 12(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
15. Therefore, this commission has decided that the above said M.G. Balasubramanian has no locus standi to file the complaint or represent on behalf of the complainant Mr. Veeman. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable.
Issue No.2
16. The complaint states in the complaint and proof affidavit that the second opposite party (Inspector of Police) had not issued the non-traceable certificate. Hence, the Complainant was not able to submit the same to the first opposite party, as per the requirement of the first opposite party (insurance company). In other words, the complainant admitted that he had not filed the necessary documentation with the first opposite party (insurance company). Hence, there should not be any legitimate expectation that an insurance claim has to be sanctioned by the first opposite party (insurance company). Further, it may be noted that here the first opposite party (insurance company) has sent letters (Exhibit A-7) to the complainant dated 12-07-2018, 19-09-2018, and 15-11-2018 and requested to submit claim form along with the necessary documentation. Except for the intimation letter dated 21-07-2018 (its acknowledgment is marked as Exhibit A-5, not even filed the copy of the intimation), it is clear that the complaint was not submitted even the claim form, which was sent by the first opposite party. Therefore, this commission has decided that the complaint is not proved and it is evident that the first opposite party has not committed any deficiency in the service.
17. There is no consumer and service provider relationship between the second opposite party and the complainant. Omission of duty by the second opposite party as alleged will not come under the consumer dispute. Therefore, this commission has decided that the complaint against the second opposite party is dismissed.
18. There is no consumer and service provider relationship between the third opposite party and the complainant in relation to the insurance claim, which is the subject here. It is admitted fact that the third opposite party sold the vehicle to the complainant, but no proof as stated he provided an insurance facility. Therefore, this commission has decided that the complaint against the third opposite party is dismissed.
19. This commission deems that without filing a claim form along with the required documents, filing a complaint against the first opposite party is not correct. Such types of complaints will lead to fake claims also. Further, this commission deems that second and third opposite parties are unnecessarily added in this complaint as parties, which led to unwanted troubles.
Issue No.3
20. Issue number two is answered as negative to the complainant; Hence, he is not eligible for compensation as he prayed.
Issue No.4
21. This commission explored whether any other remedies are essential. As per the citations noted above in paragraph number 14, Mr. M.G.Balasubramaniyan has no right to represent on behalf of the consumers as a representative of Tamil Nadu Consumer Rights Protection Trust before this commission and office of the government as a voluntary consumer association in government.
22. The complaint is unwanted as explained above in paragraph number 19, which was filed by the so-called agent. Without locus standi, the self-claiming agent Mr. M.G. Balasubramaniyan filed this complaint, which has led the opposite parties. Into trouble. Filing a complaint without locus standi is unacceptable. Therefore, this commission has decided that the self-claiming agent has to pay Rs. 10,000/- as cost of the litigation under section 39 (m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, to the first opposite party within four weeks of the receipt of this order.
As a result, this commission passes the following
ORDER
1. The Complaint is dismissed as not proved and not maintainable under the law.
2. The self-claiming agent Mr. M.G. Balasubramaniyan has to pay Rs. 10,000/- as cost of the litigation under section 39 (m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, to the first opposite party within four weeks of the receipt of this order.
3. As other remedies, Mr. M.G.Balasubramaniyan has no right to represent on behalf of the consumers as a representative of Tamil Nadu Consumer Rights Protection Trust before this commission and office of the government as a voluntary consumer association in government as per the verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3560 OF 2008 and Order in Consumer Complaint Nos. 560 of 2014 & 226, 227, 228, 229, 245, 954, 474, 475, 677, 991, 992, 1226 of 2015 & 132, 133, 160, 679, 792, 796, 797, 861, 968, 1005, 1006, 1078, 1163, 1466, 1198, 1283, 1372, 1395, 1398, 1401, 1411, 1412, 1502, 1619, 1669, 1672, 1681, 1683, 1697, 1700, 1774 of 2016 with IA Nos. 6376 & 11607 /2016 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
This Order was dictated by member I to the steno, and corrected and was pronounced by us in the open commission today.
N. BALU V.LAVANYA V.RAMARAJ
MEMBER I MEMBER II PRESIDENT
Documents marked on the side of the Complainant:
Exhibit No. | Date | Description of the Document | Remarks |
A-1 | - | Purchase Receipt issued by the 3rd opposite party | |
A-2 | 02.06.2018 | Complaint given to the 2nd opposite party about the theft of the vehicle | Xerox copy |
A-3 | 25.10.2017 | Insurance policy document issued by the 1st opposite party | Xerox copy |
A-4 | 26.10.2017 | Registration Certificate issued by R.T.O, Ariyalur | Xerox copy |
A-5 | 21.07.2018 | Petition/Letter sent to the 1st opposite party | Xerox copy |
A-6 | - | Complaint filed against the 2nd opposite party before the Judicial Magitrate, Ariyalur | Xerox copy |
A-7 | 08.10.2018 | F.I.R | Xerox copy |
A-8 | 12.07.2018 | Reminder Letter sent by the 1st opposite party | Xerox copy |
A-9 | 19.09.2018 | Reminder letter sent by the 1st opposite party with a claim form | Xerox copy |
A-10 | 15.11.2018 | Reminder letter sent by the 1st opposite party | Xerox copy |
A-11 | - | Disability Certificate of the complainant | Xerox copy |
A-12 | 22.10.2018 | Treatment Details of the complainant | Xerox copy |
Documents marked on the side of the 1st opposite party:
Exhibit No. | Date | Description of Documents | Remarks |
B-1 | 12.07.2018 | Reminder Letter sent by the 1st opposite party to the complainant with Ack. Card | Xerox copy |
B-2 | 19.09.2018 | Reminder Letter sent by the 1st opposite party to the complainant with Ack. Card | Xerox copy |
B-3 | 15.11.2018 | Final Reminder Letter sent by the 1st opposite party to the complainant with Ack. card | Xerox copy |
Witness examined by the complainant: K. Veeman (Complainant)
Witness examined by the 1st Opposite Party: D. Pradeep
N. BALU V.LAVANYA V.RAMARAJ
MEMBER I MEMBER II PRESIDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.