By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The sum up of the complaint is as follows:- The Complainant purchased a Messey Ferguson Tractor having register No. KL 12A/ 201 under hypothecation of the 1^st Opposite Party. From the very beginning onwards the insurance premium was debited from the account of the Complainant and the renewal of the policy was done from time to time. The policy in the relevant period was in between 2^nd March 2005 at 15.55 to midnight 01.03.2006. The Branch Manager of the finance bank on enquiry on 01.03.2006 informed the Complainant that Rs.6,361/- was debited towards the premium amount and the demand draft No.675726 was sent to the 2^nd Opposite Party. The vehicle met with an accident and one Jinesh was expired on 03.03.2006. The representatives of the deceased initiated proceedings under Workmen's Compensation Act for compensation in DYLC, Kannur which is numbered as WC 30/06.

2. The 1^st Opposite Party's Bank debited the premium amount of Rs.6,361/- on the relevant date before expiry of the policy period and the demand draft sent to the 2^nd Opposite Party was later returned. The omissions in the renewing of policy before midnight on 1.03.2006 by the 1^st Opposite Party is a deficiency in service. The amount debited for the demand draft was later canceled and credited in the account of the Complainant on 25.5.2006. The Complainant had to meet heavy expenses for the damages of the vehicle which includes the industrial work and other purchases from the Spare parts shop. Apart from that the Complainant had incidental expenses of Rs. 50,000/-. The hypothecated bank, the 2^nd Opposite Party has also done deficiency in service rejecting the demand draft drawing in favour of

them. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to pay:-

(a) A sum of Rs.22,860/- towards vehicle repairing charges.

(b) A sum of Rs.90,000/- towards the loss of income from the vehicle.

© A sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and shock.

(d) A sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- or amount sufficient to satisfy the award along with cost.

3. The Opposite Parties filed version on their appearance. According to the 1^st Opposite Party the finance for the purchase of Tractor and tailer No.KL 12A/201 is admitted. The Complainant is duty bound to keep up the insurance in effect and the terms of hypothecation agreement envisages the liability on the part of the complainant entering into the agreement for the renewal of the insurance policy till 02.03.2005. The 1^st Opposite Party debited in the loan account of the Complainant as a free servicing. The amount debited for the renewal of insurance policy on 01.03.2006 and demand draft was drawn in favour of the 2^nd Opposite Party which was not collected by the Complainant. The 1^st Opposite Party sent the demand draft for the renewal of policy to the 2^nd Opposite Party through authorised agent. On 2.03.2006 it was a 'benth day' and the offices could not function on that day and the issuance of the demand draft was done on 03.03.2006. The plying of the vehicle without insurance coverage is against the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act and the loss if any incurred upon the Complainant by any act in contravention of the law the 1^st Opposite Party is not liable. The compensation and other expenses demanded by the Complainant is against reasons and unjustifiable. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost to the Opposite Party.

4. The 2^nd Opposite Party filed version. The sum up of the contentions of the 2^nd Opposite Party is as follows. The previty of contract existed in between the 2^nd Opposite Party and the Complainant due to the non-renewal of policy after 01.03.2006 if any brake effected in the renewal of policy, the insured has to produce fresh proposal and the vehicle for inspection. The vehicle met with an accident at 1 P.M on 03.03.2006 during the period when the policy has no coverage. No liability can be cast upon the 2^nd Opposite Party in the absence of premium for the insured and insurer relationship. The claim of the Complainant for repair of the vehicle and other loss of income which are not considerable being it is apart from the liability of the 2^nd Opposite Party and the complaint is to be dismissed with cost.

5. The points in consideration are:-

1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Relief and cost.

6. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit, Ext.A1 to A10 and C1 to C7 are the documents filed for the Complainant. The Opposite Party filed proof affidavit inter alia contenting the allegations of the Complainant. Ext.B1 to B3 are the documents filed for the Opposite Parties in support of their contentions.

7. The case of the Complainant is that the vehicle financed by the 1^st Opposite Party's Bank was insured by the 2^nd Opposite Party. The renewal of the policy from time to time was done by the hypothecated bank the 1^st Opposite Party. The expiry of the policy period was in midnight of 01.03.2006. The policy was to be renewed by the 1^st Opposite Party debiting the amount from the account of the Complainant. On 03.03.2006 the vehicle met with an accident causing the death of a person. The 1^st Opposite Party on the relevant day of 01.03.2006 debited the premium amount from the account of the Complainant and demand draft was drawn in favour of the 2^nd Opposite Party on 01.03.2006. The draft drawn of Rs.6,361/- as the premium sum was sent to the 2^nd Opposite Party. The 2^nd Opposite Party rejected the draft later it was credited into the account of the Complainant. The 1^st Opposite Party debited in the account of the Complainant the amount required for the renewal of policy from the very beginning onwards. The whole liability of the renewal of policy rests upon the Complainant. The question which is to be considered here is that whether the policy was to be renewed by the 1^st Opposite Party's bank who financed for the vehicle. The 2^nd Opposite Party is examined as OPW1. On the crusual day of 01.03.2006 prior to the expiry of the policy time the policy was not renewed. If any brake effected in the renewal of the policy according to the 2^nd Opposite Party the formalities as such the production of the vehicle of inspection is necessary. The 2^nd Opposite Party deposed that the demand draft reached to them only on 03.03.2006 and it was not accompanied by the production of the vehicle for inspection. An another contention of the Complainant is that the demand draft was drawn in favour of the 2^nd Opposite Party on 01.03.2006 and it was also admitted by the 1^st Opposite Party the bank. The issuance of the demand draft to the 2^nd Opposite Party was effected only on 03.03.2006 by courier. The staff of professional Courier is examined as OPW2 on examination the courier staff admitted that the demand draft towards the premium amount was delivered to them on 03.03.2006 which is after two days from the date of renewal of the policy. More over it is admitted by the courier staff that the consignment was entrusted only by 4 P.M on the particular day in effect there is delay of two days in the renewal of policy. The Complainant produced the ruling of the Hon'ble State Commission the Insurance Company Ltd., VS Balachandran and Another (CPR 1997 (2) Page 244). In this particular case our Hon'ble State Commission of Kerala gave a detail of over consists in Section 64-VB of Insurance Act 1938. The facts construed in this case is not similar to the facts of this instant case. More over the section 64- VB has given an explanation by sending the premium by post this explanation denote explicitly for the section 64-VB. It is the settled position of law that the insurer is responsible for renewing the policy. Any favour of renewing the policy if done earlier by the financier cannot be considered as an obligation on their part to renew it again. More over entrusting the amount for renewing the policy with an agent of an Insurance Company is not deemed sufficient if the coverage of policy ceased to exist. In L.I.C of India V/S Giridharilal P Kesarwani & Another (2009 CTJ Page 406 (NC), the Hon'ble National Commission held that for renewal of L.I.C policy if the amount is issued to the agent and the premium if not renewed any time the date on which the amount given to the agent cannot be considered if the renewal of the policy is not effected in time. The Complainant herein is with the contention that the financier of the vehicle is responsible for renewing the policy which is against the reasons and the settled provision of law. In Mr. Ramsaran V/S Allahabad Bank (C.P.R 2008(3) Page 53) the Hon'ble National Commission held that the primary responsibility to renew the insurance is upon the Complaint alone. The remittance of premium by the financier does not absolve the Complainant from his bounded responsibility. The vehicle met with an accident on 03.03.2006 the damages caused to the vehicle is not required to be compensated by the Opposite Parties in the absence of any privity of contract. The renewal of policy in earlier period by the 1^st Opposite Party does not tantamount to right on the part of the Complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and the point No.1 is found accordingly.

8. Point No. 2:- The Opposite Parties have not done any deficiency in service, the repudiation of the claim of the Complainant is within the right entrusted by law. Since the point No.1 is not in favour of the Complainant. A detail discussion of the point No.2 is not necessary.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 30^th June 2009.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER- I: Sd/-

MEMBER-II: Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

PW1. N.M. Thomas. Complainant.

Witnesses for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. K.K. Mohanan. Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

OPW2. Viju. Courier Staff.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Copy of relevant pages of Pass Book No.5109.

A2. Policy Schedule.

A3. Duplicate Schedule.

A4. Duplicate Schedule.

A5. Copy of the Account Extract in FL 421/97. dt:08.2.2008.

A6. True Copy of the Letter. dt:01.03.2006.

A7. Bill dt:26.08.2006.

A8. Bill. dt:12.6.2006.

A9. Bill. dt:10.08.2006.

A10. Deposition of K. K. Mohanan.

C1.series. Copy of Inward Register.

C2. Copy of Postal Outward Register.

C3. Copy of Register of Bills, Cheques & Drafts received for collection.

C4. True Copy of Demand Draft. dt:01.03.2006.

C5. Copy of Letter.

C6. Copy of Letter. dt:11.03.2006.

C7. Daily Delivery Statement. dt:03.03.2006

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

B1. Copy of Memorandum of Agreement

B2. Copy of the Letter. dt:28.09.2004.