D.o.F:28/1/2010

D.o.O:20/4/2010

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                                CC.22/2010

                        Dated this, the 20th  day of April 2010.

PRESENT

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                                            : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                                : MEMBER

SMT.P.P.SYAMALADEVI                         : MEMBER

C.H.Abdulla Kunhi,

S/o Aboobacker Haji,

R/at Chapady House,                                                        : Complainant

Edneer PO, Kasaragod.

 (Adv.A.Rajagopala,Kasaragod)

1. The Manager,

     Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, Shop No.58,59

     Shree Complex ,Bhavani Hsg,Co-op Society Ltd,

    T.Block,Banashankari 4rd stage,Bangalore 560085.   : Opposite parties

(Exparte)

2. The Branch Manager,

    Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd, City point Building,

     Press Club Junction, M.G.Road,Kasaragod.

      (Adv.S.Mahaliga,Kasaragod)               

ORDER

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ     : PRESIDENT

      The case of the complainant Sri.Abdulla Kunhi is that he purchased a confiscated vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA 19 B 8978 for Rs.675000/- from the branch office of Ist opposite party at Mangalore.  Ist opposite party has therefore delivered all the original documents pertaining to the vehicle to the complainant.  Consideration for the vehicle was fixed after perusal and inspection of the documents as well as the vehicle.   Subsequently the vehicle was transferred in the name of the complainant.  But on verification it was found that insurance policy issued by 2^nd opposite party was inactive one as no premium was paid at all.  That means in effect there is no insurance coverage for the said vehicle on the date of purchase.  So the complainant had to buy a fresh policy for the said vehicle on paying Rs.25844/- from 2nd opposite party on 1/6/09.  According to the complainant he fixed the price and purchased the vehicle solely  on the basis of documents given to him by Ist opposite party.  In fact had there been no insurance coverage for the said vehicle complainant would not have come forward to buy the vehicle in question.  Hence he sustained a loss of Rs.25844/-.  In view of the  fake assurance offered by Ist opposite party.  This amount he is entitled to recover from Ist opposite party.  As a result of misrepresentations made by  opposite parties, the complainant had also to suffer mental agony.  Hence complaint filed  seeking necessary redressal.

2.  Ist opposite party remained absent  inspite of receipt of notice sent by registered post.  Therefore Ist opposite party had to be set exparte.

3.   2^nd opposite party filed version denying all the allegations in the complaint.  According to 2^nd opposite party, he is an unnecessary party to the whole proceedings.  According to him, the complainant had obtained insurance policy only on 1/6/09 and therefore privity of contract arises only from the  date onwards.  Any such misrepresentation as alleged  in the complaint is said to arise out of an independent contract entered into between the complainant and  Ist opposite party by the sale of the vehicle at an earlier date.  2^nd opposite party is not a party to that alleged contract.  Therefore, 2^nd opposite party is not liable to give any service either to the complain ant or to Ist opposite party.  Hence 2^nd opposite party prays that he  be exonerated  from any such liability whatsoever alleged in the complaint.

4.   Complainant filed an affidavit in support of his complaint and Exts.A1 to A5 marked.  Both sides were heard and documents perused.  We find that there is absolutely no contra evidence forthcoming on the part of Ist opposite party for issuing any such insurance policy.  We find the insurance policy No.441602/31/2009/1288 dtd. 21/8/09 marked as Ext.A1 issued in the name of a third party which does  not contain any premium amount paid.  Therefore it is said to be a fake document  on account of  it being inactive.  This fraudulent  act by itself reveals the ulterior motive on the part of Ist opposite party which is tantamounts to contradicting all canons of trade practice.

5.   Here the crucial question that we are faced with is that why did 2^nd opposite party take the trouble of issuing such an inactive policy for the exclusive benefit of Ist opposite party.   Such an act seems to be absurd, irregular, and immoderate and such an irresponsible act defines all cannons of proper service preposterous.  They ought to have taken proper care and attention while issuing insurance coverage policies.  But having issued a fake policy it is the complainant’s legitimate right that they should also be penalized.

         In the result, complaint is allowed and Ist opposite party, the Manager Kotak  Mahindra Bank Ltd.Bangalore is directed to pay a sum of 25844 rupees  to the complainant together with cost of 2000 rupees.  2^nd opposite party, the branch Manager, Oriantal Insurance Co.Ltd, Kasaragod is directed to  pay a sum of 10,000 rupees  to the complainant.  Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  Failing which the opposite parties are directed to pay interest @ 12% per annum  for the respective sum from the date of complaint till payment.

Sd/                                                           Sd/                                           Sd/

MEMBER                                            MEMBER                            PRESIDENT

Exts:

A1- Package policy

A2 series policy schedules

A3-Copy of RC

A4-11/6/09- copy of lawyer notice

A5-Postal acknowledgment

Sd/                                                           Sd/                                           Sd/

MEMBER                                           MEMBER                            PRESIDENT

eva     /Forwarded by Order/

                                          SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT