BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986) SANGAREDDY, MEDAK DISTRICT.
Present: Sri P.V.Subrahmanayma, B.A.B.L., PRESIDENT
Smt U.Sunita, M.A., Lady Member
Sri Mekala Narsimha Reddy, M.A.,LL.B.,
P.G.D.C.P.L. Male Member
Wednesday, the 12th day of August, 2009
CC.No. 9 of 2009
Between:
Patnam Raju S/o Ramaiah,
Age Major, Occ: Auto owner, Resident of House
No. 174, Cherla Gopularam Village,
Mandal Kondapur, Medak District.
….. Complainant
And
M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
6-4-8, First Floor, Vijetha Sanjeevini,
Appartments, Opposite Gandhi Hospital,
Musheerabad, Hyderbad.
….Opposite parties
This case came up for final hearing before us on 21.07.2009 in the presence of Sri. S. Gyanoba, advocate for complainant and Sri. J. Ram Reddy, advocate for the opposite party, on hearing the arguments of both sides, upon perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
(Per Sri. P.V. Subrahmanyam, President)
This complaint is filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.1,00,000/- with interest 12% p.a. towards damages and to pay costs of Rs.5,000/-.
The averments in the complaint in brief are as follows:
1. The complainant insured his auto bearing No. AP 23 V 7387 with the opposite party through their agent on 12.03.2008 by paying a premium of Rs.2,591/- and he issued a proposal cum cover note No.200703151952 in favour of the complainant. The agent informed that the opposite party will furnish the original policy within 30 days from the date of issue of the proposal cum cover note. But the complainant did not receive the policy within 30 days and his oral requests including through telephone made to the opposite party and to the agent proved futile. Therefore he got a legal notice issued on 21.06.2008 to the opposite party for the policy. Even after receipt of the notice the opposite party has neither issued the policy nor replied. Traffic Police and officials of RTA are creating so many problems to the complainant as he does not posses the original policy, as such the complainant is not in a position to run his auto properly which is the only source of living to him and to his family. The complainant has not been running the auto regularly from the date of the proposal cum cover note till the date of the filing of the complaint and there by the auto is also spoiled. For the negligence of the authorized agent the opposite party is vicariously liable. The complainant is a consumer and the negligence of the opposite party and their authorized agent is deficiency in service within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence this complaint.
2. The complaint is resisted the opposite party by filing a counter to the following effect:
Policy was issued to the complainant from Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Wadala (W) Mumbai on 19.03.2008 and the same was sent by the opposite party to the insured on the same date to the address given by the complainant. Agent of the company of the opposite party is a necessary party to the complaint as the complainant has taken the copy from the agent. Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary party. The opposite party learnt that after receiving the original policy only this complaint is filed to harass the opposite party. The opposite party denies that the complainant did not receive the policy and requested orally and by telephone. They are all false. It is further false to allege that the complainant faced so many problems from traffic police and officials of RTA and he lost his lively hood. In fact the complainant came to know about the address of the opposite party after receiving the policy only and then only filed this false case. The complainant is not entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages as policy was already issued to him. The complainant himself is harassing the opposite party by filing this false complaint. It is reliably learnt that after receiving the cover note and policy copy, the complainant furnished copy to the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Sangareddy in crime No. 35/2008 and with this it is clear that the complainant received the policy already. The address of the complainant mentioned in the cover note, legal notice and in the house hold card are different. The complainant deliberately furnished different addresses at different times. The opposite party is filing copy of the policy in this forum and the same may be given to the complainant even though the opposite party sent the policy copy already and hence the complainant may be dismissed.
3. In order to prove the averments of both parties, their evidence affidavits are filed and marked Ex. A1 to A4 on behalf of the complainant and Ex.B1 on behalf of the opposite party. Written arguments of both parties filed and oral arguments are also advanced on either side. Perused the record.
4. The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to damages of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/- as prayed for in the complainant?
Point:
5. The case of the complainant is that he is owner of auto bearing No. AP 23 V 7387 and he paid premium amount to the agent of the opposite party for a policy, who issued a proposal cum cover note No. 200703151952 to cover the risk of auto from 12.03.2008, but the opposite party did not send policy copy within one month and inspite of requests of the complainant to the opposite party and their agent for the policy, there was no response and for want of policy the complainant could not run the auto from the date of proposal cum cover note. The income derived by running auto is the only source of living for him. According to him he could not run the auto as police and officials of RTA are creating so many problems to him. But according to the opposite party on 19.03.2008 itself the policy was sent to the complainant to the address given in the cover note, however a copy of it is filed before this forum for being delivered to the complainant. The opposite party denied the contentions of the complainant that police and officials of RTA created so many problems to the complainant for want of policy therefore the complainant could not run the auto from the date of cover note and there by he lost his living and the auto was also spoiled. According the learned counsel for opposite party proposal cum cover note is as good as policy and it serves the purpose.
6. Ex.A1 is proposal cum cover note, Ex.A2 is copy of legal notice issued by the advocate for the complainant to the opposite party, Ex.A3 is postal registration receipt and Ex.A4 is house hold card of the complainant. Ex. B1 is the copy of the policy.
7. It is not in dispute that the complainant paid premium of Rs. 2,591/- to the agent of the opposite party on 12.03.2008 for a policy to his auto bearing No. AP 23 V 7387 under Ex.A1 proposal cum cover note bearing No. 200703151952 . Te contention of the opposite party is that the agent to whom the premium is paid by the complainant is a necessary party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary party. This contention is not acceptable as the opposite party sent the policy directly to the complainant but not through their agent. Moreover payment of premium by the complainant to the agent of the opposite party is not in dispute.
8. According to the complainant he did not receive the policy within 30 days from the date of Ex.A1 proposal cum cover note and his requests orally and through telephone to the opposite party and their agent proved futile. Opposite party denied the said contentions. According to it on 19.03.2008 i.e. one week after Ex.A1 they received the policy from their Mumbai Office and on the same day it was sent to the complainant. Because the complainant denied receipt of the same the burden is on the opposite party to prove sending of the policy to the complainant. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that they have sent the policy through ordinary post as usual to the address given in the proposal cum cover note therefore they do not have any proof to show that the policy was sent to the complainant. Moreover the complaint has given different addresses at different times and in this connection he has referred to Ex.A1, A2 and A4. In Ex.A1 the address of the complainant is mentioned as Cherlagopularam, Morlapala, Ex.A2 legal notice shows the residence of the complainant as H.No. 1-74, Cherla Gopularam Village, Kondapur Mandal, Medak District. Ex.A4 shows the residence of the complainant as House No. 1-79/2, Ch.gopularam, Kondapur Mandal, Medak District. Therefore on a perusal of Ex.A1,A2 and A4 it is observed that Ex.A1 does not contain House Number and Ex.A2 and A4 contain different house numbers. The complainant has not alleged any personal animosities to any of the officials of the opposite party to make false representations that they sent the policy to the complainant without sending. As they discharge official duties, in their regular course of business they must have certainly sent the policy to the complainant as contended by them and because of different addresses given by the complainant, it might not have been received by him. Even otherwise till the receipt of the policy a person who paid premium is entitled to use proposal cum cover note as the same is as good as policy.
9. The learned counsel for the opposite party then argued that they reliably learnt that the auto of the complainant met with an accident on 12.03.2008 at 10:00 A.M. and suppressing the said fact the complainant managed to pay premium to the agent of the opposite party at 4:00 P.M. on 12.03.2008 and obtained Ex.A1 proposal cum cover note and later the time of proposal mentioned in the Ex.A1 is corrected as 9:00 A.M. On a perusal of Ex.A1 it is clearly seen that there is correction of the time and the letter ‘A’ in “A.M.” after the time. The correction lends support to the contentions of the learned counsel of the opposite party that 4-00 P.M. is corrected has 9-00 A.M. It is not known by whom the correction is made. There are initials of some body above the said corrections and they appear to be of the authorized signatory of the opposite party who signed the proposal cum cover note at the end. Ex.A1 does not contain the signature of the complainant even though a provision is made for the said purpose at the left side bottom of the front page of it. Another aspect to consider is normally policy cum cover note and subsequent policy covers a period of one year only for insurance of motor vehicles, but Ex.A1 shows that the effective date and time of commencement of the insurance is 12.03.2008, 9:00 A.M. (the time is with correction) and date of expiry of insurance is mentioned as mid night of 11.08.2009 instead of 11.03.2009. Therefore from the above circumstances there is something fishy in the matter.
10. The contention of the complainant that police and officials of the RTA are creating so many problems to him and therefore he could not run the auto from the date of issue of Ex.A1 and there by he lost his living and further the auto is also spoiled. This contention of the complainant is totally un acceptable because as already stated above, Ex.A1 can be made use of by the complainant till he receives policy, because it is as good as policy. The complainant has not placed any satisfactory evidence in support of the problems alleged to have suffered by him at the instance of police and officials of RTA. The complainant has also not produced any proof that he did not run the auto from the date of EX.A1 and therefore it is spoiled and that he is entitled to damages of Rs.1,00,000/-.
11. In view of the circumstances discussed above we do not see any merits in the complaint and therefore it is held that the complainant is not entitled to any relief muchless the damages and costs claimed in complaint. The point is answered against the complainant.
12. In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this 12th day of August, 2009.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witness examined
For the complainant : For the opposite parties:
-Nil- -Nil-
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For the complainant : For the opposite parties:
Ex.A1/dt.12.03.2008 Proposal cum cover note. Ex.B1/dt 12.03.2008- Copy of the policy
Ex/A2/dt.21.06.2008 - Copy of legal notice issued
by the advocate for the
complainant to the opposite party.
Ex.A3/dt.21.06.2008 - Postal registration receipt.
Ex.A4/dt.04.06.2006 - Copy of house hold card.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Copy to:
1). The Complainant
2).The Opposite party
3).Spare copy Copy delivered to the Complainant/
Opp.parties On ________
Dis.No. /2009, dt.
