D.of.F:17/6/2011

D. of O: 23/4/2012

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                              CC.NO.138/2011

                  Dated this, the 23rd  day of April 2012

PRESENT:

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                                          : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                 : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                                    : MEMBER 

Safiya, W/o Moideen Kunhi,                                      :

R/at Safwan Villa, Athinhal,

Manikoth.pO                                                                :      Complainant

(Adv.Naseema.E.K,Hosdurg)

1.M/s Reliance  General Insurance Co.Ltd,                          ;

Office at 19, reliance Centre,Watchand,

Hiraichand Marg,  Ballard Estate, Mumbai.             :   Opposite parties

2. Manager, Reliance  General Insurance Co.Ltd,

Ist floor, Adithya Tower, Opp.Civil Station, Kannur.670002.:

(Adv. Mammu,Taliparamba)

                                                            ORDER

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ      : PRESIDENT

The case of the complainant in  brief is as follows:

   Complainant is the RC owner of Hyundai i 10 car bearing Reg No. KL-60/A 4157.  It is insured with Ist opposite party.  2nd opposite party, the branch office of Ist opposite party issued a cover note valid till 31/12/2010.  On 13th June 2011 while the son-in-law of the complainant with his family was traveling in the said car  the Judicial Ist Class Magistrate(Mobile) imposed a fine  of Rs.1000/- since there was only the cover note having validity upto 31/12/2010.  The opposite parties ought to have issued the  policy of  insurance before the date of expiry  of the cover note.  The opposite parties committed deficiency in  their service rendered that caused mental agony  and loss to the complainant.  Hence the complaint.

2.  According to opposite party  the averment that the JFCM fined the complainant’s son-in-law for  want of insurance policy is not correct.  The complainant had received the policy and original of the policy is in the custody of the complainant and the  claim of the complainant is baseless and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.   Complainant’s  son-in-law  examined as PW1 .  Exts.A1 to A3 marked.  No oral or documentary evidence adduced by opposite parties.

4.  The issues to be  settled in this case are:

1. Whether  the opposite parties issued the policy to the  complainant before 14.6.11?

2.  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

3.  Relief & Costs

5. Issue Nos.1&2:  The case of the complainant is that the opposite parties did not  issue the policy to him and as a result JFCM Court(Mobile) fined him Rs.1000/-.  According to him had the opposite parties issued the policy prior to the expiration of the  time of  cover note then he should not have fined.

6.  PW1 during  his cross examination had deposed that he received the policy (copy of the policy is marked as Ext.A3) only after his subsequent  enquires with the opposite parties after the incident of levying  fine by Mobile court.

7.  But according to learned counsel for opposite party, the policy, Ext.A3 itself shows that the date of issue of the policy was 18/10/10 and therefore the case of the complainant that he got the policy  only subsequent to the seizure of the car by JFCM(Mobile) is not true and hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

8.  On a close perusal of Ext.A3 copy of the policy nowhere it is seen that the policy is communicated to the complainant on 18/10/10.  Ext.A3 only shows that the policy is signed on 18/10/10.  There is absolutely  no document produced by the opposite parties to show that the policy was served on the complainant on 18/10/10 or any date prior to levying of fine by the Magistrate for want of insurance policy. In a contract of insurance the date of communication of the policy is also part of the service of the insurer.  In this case it is evident that the opposite parties failed to issue the policy to the complainant before the expiration of cover note and as a result complainant constrained to pay fine in Mobile Court due to lack of  insurance policy with him.  Therefore the opposite parties are liable to pay  compensation to the complainant for the loss and hardships suffered.

9.  Issue No.3 Relief & Cost:

 The son –in- law of the complainant not only paid fine of Rs.1000/- but also suffered mental agony and sufferings on account of non-serving the policy to the complainant.  The opposite parties are therefore  liable to compensate the complainant.

   In the result complaint is  allowed and opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation  including the fine paid before Mobile Court with a cost of Rs.2000/-.  Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.

Exts:

A1-  receipt issued by JFCM Court(Mobile) Kannur

A2-Cover note

A3  copy of the policy

Sd/                                                                 Sd/                                               Sd/

 MEMBER                                         MEMBER                            PRESIDENT

                                                                     /Forwarded by Order/

                                                        SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT