BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 15th of October 2010
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : MEMBER
SRI. ARUN KUMAR K. : MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.144/2010
(Admitted on 7.5.2010)
Subbanna Bhat,
So Krishna Bhat,
Aged about 48 years,
Rat. Badekkila House,
P.O. Kedila,
Bantwal Taluk, D.K. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri.Sanjay.D.)
VERSUS
1. Manager,
Road Safety Club P Ltd.,
1 Floor, Sambandam Street,
G.N.Chetty Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai 17.
2. Manager,
SKI Retail Capital Ltd.,
G-12, 1st Floor,
Near Raghavendra Swamy Mutt,
Jodumatt Street,
Mangalore-1. ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite Parties: Sri.K.Prithviraj Rai)
ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The Complainant submits that, he is the member of the Road Safety Club i.e., 1st Opposite Party as per membership No.30052 dated 13.7.2001. The membership is valid for eight years from 13.7.2001 i.e. up to 5.7.2009. The Complainant has paid Rs.3,000/- as membership fee. It is stated that, as per the terms and conditions of the road safety policy issued by the Opposite Party, all the members are eligible to receive complimentary comprehensive insurance cover in respect of the vehicle owned by them. Accordingly, the Complainant has taken insurance policy for his scooter bearing Registration.No.KA-21-E-5132 for eight years.
When the matter stood thus, the Complainant has completed eight years on 5.7.2009 without any claim under the policy issued by the Opposite Parties and applied for bonus. It is stated that, the Opposite Party has not considered the bonus and called upon the Complainant to issue no claim certificates from the insurance companies. It is stated that, the 1st Opposite Party has obtained insurance policy to the Complainant from Chennai and branches of various insurance companies, these two cities are far away from Complainant’s home town, the 1st Opposite Party did not give the insurance policies of eight years to the Complainant. Hence, the Complainant issued a lawyers notice to the Opposite Parties and the same was served, but till today they have not paid the bonus which amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore, the above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.3,000/- to the Complainant with interest at 12% per annum from 5.7.2009 till payment along with compensation and cost of the proceedings.
2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel filed version and submitted that, public were encouraged to become members of the Road Safety Club, consequent upon which the members will get complementary insurance cover depending upon the type of membership. As per the terms and conditions for the Road Safety Club program, all members are eligible to receive complementary, comprehensive insurance cover in respect of one vehicle owned by them. It is stated that, the Complainant was provided complementary insurance cover for his scooter bearing Registration No.KA-21-E-5132 for eight years period. This Opposite Party is co-ordinating with various insurance companies to provide insurance policies to their members. The Complainant has joined as the member of the Road Safety Club Private Limited and availed group insurance policy benefits. The Complainant was issued membership certificate and his scooter was provided insurance cover for eight years. The 1st Opposite Party unaware of the claims which the policy holders make directed with the insurance company. As per the terms and conditions, the members shall directly sort out with the insurance company regarding the claims which they make under the policy. Therefore, the 1st Opposite Party has intimated to the Complainant that, the Complainant shall obtain no claim certificates from insurance companies. To claim the ‘No Claim Certificate’, the details were given to the Complainant. It is stated that, the insurance company branches do have office throughout India including, Mangalore. Since, the Complainant not produced ‘No Claim Certificate’ from the insurance companies in respect of his policies. This Opposite Party is not liable to pay any bonus as stated in the policy and contended that there is no deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.
3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
-
- What order?
4. In support of the complaint, Sri Subbanna Bhat, (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex C1 to C9 were produced for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. One Sri. Rathnakar Kudwa (RW1), Asst. Manager of the Opposite Party filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. Doc.No.1 to 5 were produced for the Opposite Parties as listed in the annexure. Both parties are produced notes of arguments.
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Negative.
Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
5. POINTS NO. (i) to (iii):
The facts which are not in dispute are that, the Complainant is the member of the 1st and 2nd Opposite Party as per membership receipt No.30052 dated 13.7.2001, since from the year 2001 as per Ex.C1. It is also admitted that, the above said membership is valid for eight years from 13.7.2001 to 5.1.2009. As per the terms and conditions of the Road Safety Policy issued by the Opposite Parties, all the members are eligible to receive complementary, comprehensive insurance cover in respect of one vehicle owned by them. Accordingly, the Complainant was provided complementary insurance cover for his scooter bearing Reg.No.KA.21-E-5132 for eight years period. It is also admitted that, the Complainant has joined as member of the Road Safety Club Private Limited as stated above and availed Group Insurance Policy benefits.
Now the point in dispute between the parties are that, the Complainant came with a allegation stating that, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, if the member does not claim any benefits in eight years, then, he will be eligible for Safety Bonus of Rs.3,000/- from the Opposite Parties. It is stated that, the Complainant has completed eight years on 5.7.2009 without any claim under the policies issued by the Opposite Parties. The Complainant addressed a letter to the 1st Opposite Party to pay the Safety Bonus to him. The 1st Opposite Party inturn replied that, the Complainant should get the ‘No Claim Certificate’ from the insurance companies. The allegation of the Complainant is that, the Opposite Party issued the insurance policies from Chennai and Rajasthan Branches, these two cities are away from Complainant’s residence. Hence, he could not obtain ‘no claim certificate’. Since the Opposite Parties failed, the Complainant came up with this Complaint.
On the contrary, the Opposite Party interalia contended that, the Complainant not submitted the ‘No Claim Certificate’ from the Insurance Companies as per the terms and conditions of the Road Safety Club Program. Hence they could not honour the claim of the Complainant.
The Complainant filed evidence and produced Ex.C1 to C9 and Opposite Parties also led evidence by way of affidavit and produced Doc.No.1 to 5.
On scrutiny of the documents available on the file, the Ex. C2 i.e. Road Safety Membership Certificate dated 5.7.2001 issued by the 1st Opposite Party in line No.13 of the terms and conditions reads thus:
“The members specifically acknowledges that the issuer will not be liable in any manner whatsoever by virtue of any insurance cover provided, and that the insurance company will be solely liable, in case of any claim, the member shall not hold the issuer responsible for any matter arising out of or in connection with such insurance cover, whether for or in respect of any deficiency or defect in such insurance cover, recovery or payment of compensation, processing or settlement of claims or otherwise however, and all such matters shall be addressed to and sorted out directly with the insurance company.”
Further in Para No.5 of the version filed by the Opposite Parties reveals that the Complainant was provided insurance cover in respect of his scooter for eight years. The same has been admitted by the Complainant.
We have noticed that, the Ex.C3 is the letter written by the Complainant dated:6.3.2010 to National Insurance Company Limited, Chennai, the Ex.C4 a letter dated:6.3.2010 written by the Complainant to Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai and letters dated 6.3.2010 written by the Complainant to TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited and M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai clearly reveals that, the Complainant was aware of the policy number and other details. It is pertinent to note that, to avail the Road Safety Bonus, as per the terms and conditions of the policy the member has to produce ‘no claim Certificate’ by obtaining from insurance companies where he had insured his scooter under the policies. The Complainant need not go to Chennai or Rajasthan as alleged in the complaint. The insurance companies having branch offices at each division of the state throughout India including D.K. District. The Complainant instead of writing letter to Chennai, he should have approached the branch offices at Mangalore. No such attempt has been made by the Complainant is fatal to his case. In order to claim the bonus, the Complainant must produce the ‘no claim certificate’ in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated under the membership certificate issued by the Opposite Parties. Since the Complainant not submitted the ‘no claim certificate’, the Opposite Parties not honoured the claim of the Complainant in this case. Hence, we noticed that, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The Complainant could get the ‘no claim certificate’ in branch offices situated at Mangalore and present the claim as per the terms and conditions of the membership certificates issued by the Opposite Parties.
In view of the above discussion, we find no force in this complaint. Hence, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and therefore the file be consigned to record.
(Page No.1 to 10 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 15th day of October 2010.)
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Sri Subbanna Bhat – Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1 – 13.7.2001: Original Membership Receipt.
Ex C2 – 5.7.2001: Copy of the Membership Certificate.
Ex C3 – 6.3.2010: Letter addressed by the Complainant to
Insurance Companies.
Ex C4 – 6.3.2010: Letter addressed by the Complainant to
Insurance Companies.
Ex C5 – 6.3.2010: Letter addressed by the Complainant to
Insurance Companies.
Ex C6 – 6.3.2010: Letter addressed by the Complainant to
Insurance Companies
Ex C7 – 22.2.2010: Office Copy of Registered Lawyers Notice.
Ex C8 – 27.2.2010: Reply of 1st Opposite Party.
Ex C9 – 26.2.2010: Postal Acknowledgement of 2nd Opposite Party.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1 – Sri. Rathnakar Kudwa, Asst. Manager of the Opposite Party.
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Doc.No.1 – 19.8.2009: Copy of Letter addressed to the Complainant from Opposite Party No.1.
Doc.No.2 – 16.9.2009: Copy of Letter addressed to the Complainant from Opposite Party No.1.
Doc.No.3 – 27.2.2010: E-mail copy of Application Query details of Insurance companies.
Doc.No.4 - : Copy of Insurance company address details.
Doc.No.5 – 19.9.2009: Copy of letter addressed to the Complainant from Opposite Party No.1.
Dated:15.10.2010 PRESIDENT
