BEFORE THE CIRCUIT BENCH A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT VIJAYAWADA
OF 2008 AGAINST C.C.NO61 OF 2007 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM KRISHNA AT MACHILIPATNAM
Between
Tangirala Sridhar
S/o Hari Narayana, Hindu
aged about 41 years, Occ: Constable
D.No.7/387, Godugupet, Machilipatnam
Krishna District Appellant/complainant
A N D
1. V.Srinivasa Gupta
aged 39 years, Shriram Chits Bldg.,
Durgamahal Centre, Machilipatnam
Krishna District
2. The Divisional Manager,
Shriram Life Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Divisional office III Floor, Gayathri
Complex, Near Benz Circle
Eluru Road, Vijayawada-08
Respondent/opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellant Sri S.Ramachandra Prasad
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 Exparte
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 Sri K.Maheswara Rao
OF 2010 AGAINST C.C.NO61 OF 2007
Between
The Divisional Manager
Shriram Life Insurance Company Ltd.,
Divisional office, III Floor, Gayatri Complex
Near Benz Circle, Eluru Road,
Vijayawada-8, Krishna Dist. Appellant/opposite party no.2
A N D
1. Tangirala Sridhar
S/o Hari Narayana,
aged about 40 years, Hindu Occ: Employee
D.No.8/319, Godugupet, Machilipatnam
Krishna District
Respondent/complainant
2. V.Srinivasa Gupta
aged 38 years, Shriram Chits Bldg.,
Durgamahal Centre, Machilipatnam
Krishna District Respondent/opposite party no.1
Counsel for the Appellant Sri K.Maheswara Rao
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 Sri S.Ramachandra Prasad
QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER
&
SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
FRIDAY THE EIGTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
***
1. The opposite party no.2 preferred the Appeal F.A.No.342 of 2010 and the complainant filed the appeal F.A.No. 942 of 2008 challenging the order dated 03-06-2008 in C.C.No. 61 of 2007 of the District Forum.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant paid an amount of `25,000/- on 31-03-2007 towards premium through the opposite party no.2 to the opposite party no.1 for the purpose of obtaining three ‘Shriplus’ insurance policies. The opposite party no.2 issued the insurance policy bearing number LN 100700058134 commencing from 28-03-2007, insurance policy bearing number LN100700080112 commencing from 13-05-2007 and insurance policy bearing number 1007000112032 commencing from 02-08-2007 on different dates in favour of the complainant.
3. The complainant filed the complaint stating that The opposite party had issued the policies after a period of three months from the date of receipt of the premium and utilized the amount for the purpose of their business i.e., money lending and share market. The complainant sought for direction restraining opposite party no.2 from conducting the insurance business of the and for payment of `4 lakh towards penalty and costs of `5,000/-
4. The opposite party no.1 was set exparte. The complainant had not pressed his claim against the opposite party no.2.
5. The District Forum allowed the complaint opining that the opposite parties retaining the amount for a period of four months and then issuing the insurance policies amounts to deficiency in service and awarded an amount of `5,000/- as compensation and `1,000/- towards costs.
6. The opposite party no.2 challenged the order of the District Forum on the grounds that the complainant had not pressed the claim against the opposite party for no reason and the District Forum had not given reasonable opportunity to the opposite party no.2 to substantiate its assertion that the delay in issuing the insurance policy was attributable to the complainant as the complainant had not furnished relevant details in the proposal form.
7. The complainant assailed the order on the premise that the District Forum failed to appreciate his case in proper and correct perspective and awarded the meager compensation of `5,000/- despite coming to conclusion that there was latches on the part of the opposite party in issuing the insurance policy four months after receipt of the premium.
8. The point for consideration is whether the order under appeal suffers from infirmity of misappreciation fact or law?
9. The complainant had not pressed the claim against the opposite party no.1 when the notice sent by the District Forum was returned with the postal endorsement that the opposite party no.1 was not the employee of the opposite party no.2 insurance company but he is only its agent. It is not the case of the opposite party no.2 that the opposite party no.1 had mismanaged the premium or that it had not authorized the opposite party no.2 to collect the premium from the complainant. Admittedly, the opposite party no.2 had received the premium from the complainant through the opposite party no.1.Therefore, the contention of the opposite party no.2 insurance company that the complaint could not have been allowed, for the complainant had not pressed the claim, is not sustainable.
10. The notice was served on the opposite party no.2 insurance company and the case was posted for its appearance on 10th January, 2008. Since then the complaint had undergone several adjournments on 22-01-2008,29-01-2008,06-02-2008,18-02-2008,21-02-2008,27-02-2008,07-03-2008,14-03-2008, 17-03-2008,19-03-2008,24-03-2008,28-03-2008,03-04-2008,08-04-2008,15-04-2008,18-04-2008, 23-04-2008,29-04-2008,02-05-2008,08-05-2008, and on 08-05-2008 the following order was passed:
“Steps against the O.P.No.1 not filed .Complainant endorsed not pressing complaint against OPI. Hence, complaint against OPI is dismissed.OP2 is absenting since beginning. No written version is filed for OP2. For hearing complainant at request, call on 9-5-08”.
11. Thereafter, the case was adjourned five months from 9-05-2008 till 21-05-2008 and the order was pronounced on 03-06-2008. The case was adjourned from time to time for a period of five months and despite the fact of it being disposed of beyond the stipulated period, the opposite party no.2 insurance company contends that reasonable opportunity was not given to it for substantiating its assertions. The opposite party no.2 had not made its appearance before the District Forum. Hence, the question of hearing it and giving reasonable opportunity does not arise. The Opposite Party being an institution is not supposed to come up with factually misleading version.
12. If we proceed to consider the merits of the case, the complainant paid an amount of `25,000/- on 31-03-2007 to the opposite party no.2 through the opposite party no.1 and the opposite party no.2 issued Deposit Acknowledgment Receipt on 31-03-2007 and thereafter the First Premium Receipt was issued on 02-08-2007 wherein it was stated that the opposite party no.1 had received the premium on 21-07-2007 in acknowledgement of which the Temporary Receipt bearing number 1730591was issued and the premium paid was for the period from 21-07-2007 to 02-08-2008. Shri Plus policy was issued with the date of its commencement, 02-08-2007. The date of proposal as mentioned in the Policy Schedule is 21-07-2007.
13. The opposite party no.2 contends that the delay in issuing the policy was attributable to the complainant’s submitting the details after prolonged time whereas the complainant submitted that the opposite party no.2 insurance company had issued the insurance policy after a period of four months from the date of collection of the premium from him. The opposite party no.2 insurance company no.2 in 5th paragraph of its written arguments refers to the receipt of the premium by the opposite party no.1 on 21-07-2007 and contends that the policy was issued within prescribed time from 31-07-2007 i.e., the date of the issuing of the premium receipt. It was contended as under:
“ It is apt to mention that, admittedly , the District Forum arrived finding in relating to the Opposite Party No.2, in view of alleged act done by the Opposite Party No.1 only. But evidently, Ex.A-2 categorically reveals that, the Opposite Party No.2 received Temporary Receipt on 21-07-2007 as such, on 31-07-2007 1st Premium Receipt was issued by the Opposite Party No.2. Subsequently, within the prescribed only the Opposite Party No.2 issued policy in favour of the complainant. All these above facts and circumstances clearly demonstrate that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.2. If any alleged (any) deficiency cause it is between the complainant andO.P.No.1.”
14. The contention of the Opposite Party No.2 attributing negligence to the Opposite Party No.1 makes two facts clear, that the premium was received from the complainant by the opposite party no.1 while acting as the agent of the Opposite Party No.2 which ultimately led to delay in issuing the insurance policy and no further details were sought by the Opposite Party No.2 relating to the proposal. The Opposite Party No.2 insurance company had not explained the duration of the prescribed time as regards to the time limit for issuing the insurance policy. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Opposite Party No.2 had committed deficiency in service by causing delay in issuing the insurance policy in favour of the complainant.
15. The District Forum awarded an amount of `5,000/- towards compensation. At the time of awarding the amount in favour of the complainant, the Opposite Party No.2 did not contest the claim. Therefore, certain facts which were brought to the fore in the appeal before this Commission were not brought to the notice of the District Forum at the time of granting the amount of `5,000/- by the District Forum. It is contended by the Opposite Party No.2 insurance company that the complainant’s wife filed H.R.C.No.922 of 2008 before the A.P. Human Rights Commission and she had not prosecuted the case when the Opposite Party No.2 filed counter submitting that the complainant’s wife could visit their office and rectify mistake if any, in the policy documents. The Human Rights Commission had closed the complaint holding that the petition lacked merits. It was held,
“It may be noted that the company has also written a letter to the petitioner to come over to the company for rectification of irregularities in the policy documents, if there are any mistakes in the policies, but she did not go, although she acknowledged receipt of the letter issued by Shriram Life Insurance Co.Ltd. Similarly, she has not filed any reply before this Commission when the report of the Shriram Life Insurance Co.Ltd”.
16. The complainant filed Pre-Litigation Case No.191 of 2007 on the file of Legal service Authority, Machilipatnam, Krishna and after the Opposite Party No.2 filed its counter, the complainant did not prosecute the case resulting in closure of the petition by the Legal Services Authority holding that the complainant had not rectified the defects in the proposal till the month of July, 2007. Thereafter, the complainant filed private complaint in C.C.(C.F.)No. 5065 of 2008 before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Machilipatnam, Krishna Distinct. Therefore, the attitude of the complainant as pointed out by the Legal Services Authority and that of his wife as held by the Human Rights Commission in regard to the opportunity given to them to sort out any problem as also the time required by the complainant in attending to the rectification of defects in the proposal have to be taken into account while assessing the quantum of amount to be granted as compensation for the mental tension undergone by the complainant for the delay in issuing the insurance policy. It is pertinent to note that the complainant has not suffered any actual loss for the delayed issuing of the policy. Taking into consideration of these facts, we restrict the amount awarded as compensation from `5,000/ as awarded by the District Forum to Rs.3,000/-
17. In the result, the appeal, F.A.No.342 of 2010 filed by the Opposite Party Insurance Company is allowed. The Order dated 03-06-2008 of the District Forum is modified restricting the amount awarded as compensation to `3,000/-. As a sequel, the appeal, F.A.No.942 of 2008 filed by the complainant is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Dt.08.10.2010
KMK*
