Filed On:15.02.2006
Disposed On:29.07.2015
THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
THIRUVALLUR
PRESENT: THIRU. S. PANDIAN, B.SC., L.L.M : PRESIDENT
TMT. S. SUJATHA, B.Sc., : MEMBER-I
THIRU. V. VENKATESAN, M.A.B.Ed., M.B.A., M.Phil., B.L., : MEMBER-II
Wednesday, the Day of 29th July-2015
cc. No. 20/2007
R. Vetrivel
S/o. Ramasamy Nadar
No. 1/44, Redhils Road, Ikkadu Village
Tiruvallur Taluk & Disrtict. …Complainant
-Vs-
The Branch Manager
United India Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Tiruvallur Branch having office at
No. 58 North Raja Street
Tiruvallur Town & Taluk
Tiruvallur District. …Opposite Party
Counsel For Complainant : M/s. A.R. Suresh, &A.R. Poovannan, Advocates
Counsel For Opposite Party : Set Exparte
This Complaint is coming upon before us finally on 22.07.2015 in the presence M/s. A.R. Suresh, & A.R. Poovannan, Advocates. on the side of the complainant and Mr. S. Suresh, Advocate initially the Opposite Party appeared and subsequently non appearance of the Opposite Party he was Set Exparte and upon hearing arguments on the side of the complainant and perused the documents and evidence, this Forum delivered the following,
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENT
This complaint is filed by the complainant of U/S12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the opposite party to direct him to pay a sum of Ra.75,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service causing mental agony and hardship and with cost.
The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:
1. The complainant is owning a two-wheeler Hero Honda bearing Registration No. TN 22 N 6631. The complainant used to insure the vehicle only with the opposite party company and the insurance for the vehicle expire on 25.06.2005. The complainant had approached the opposite party for the renewal of Insurance after 25.06.2005. The complainant intends to insure the vehicle for the 3rd party insurance. But the Branch Manager, Mr. Ramanathan insisted the complainant to take the comprehensive policy and refused to accept the proposal of 3rd party insurance. The insurance is left open for the option of the Consumers and the company shall not force the consumer to take a specific policy. The act of the opposite party is deficiency in service and caused mental agony to the complainant. Because of the act of the opposite party, the complainant was forced to renew the insurance of his two-wheeler at the Ambathur Branch. Hence the complainant had issued a legal notice on 25.07.2005 but the opposite party had not replied. Hence the complaint, claiming to pay a sum of Rs.75000/- towards compensation for the mental agony due to deficiency in service and cost of this complaint.
The Contention of the Written Version by the Opposite Party as brief as follows:
2. The complaint is neither true nor sustainable. The opposite party denies the entire allegation in the complaint as false. The complainant never met the branch manager of it to renew the policy for his two wheeler bearing Regn. No. TN.22N 6631 in 2005 as alleged in para 3 of the complaint. The Complainant never given any proposal to it to renew the policy for the said vehicle in 2005.
3. When a proposal (that is an offer) was given and it was accepted then only a concluded contract should arose. But in the instant case, there was no offer at all from the complainant, that being so, there was no question for the alleged refusal for issuance of third party policy to the complainant to his vehicle. There was no deficiency in service was committed by it, by its the Office bearers at any time to the complainant (or) to other person much less as alleged in petition.
4. The opposite party was not aware about issuance of notice on.25.07.2005 to the Ombudsman to take the action against it and the reply given on 04.08.2005 till his receipt of the service of the complaint copy from this Hon’ble forum and also about the issuance of notice to the Manager, Grievance Cell, United India Insurance Company. It is denied that the officials of superior post of the opposite party also liable for alleged deficiency in service of the opposite party and that the complainant sustained mental agony and that the alleged deficiency in the service.
5. The cause of action alleged for the complaint is only an imaginary. There was no concluded contract taken place between the complainant and opposite party, because the complainant never approached it on 25.07.2005. The replay sent by the Ombudsman, itself clearly revealed that, if really any partial or total repudiation of claims, any dispute on the legal construction of the policies in respect of claims and non-issuance of any insurance document after receipt of premium (or) delay in settlement of claim after issuance of the policy by the Insurance Company, any deficiency in service arose that only an entertain able complaint shall be lodged as against the opposite party by the complainant. But in the instant complaint, none of the things had happened. Hence the complainant has no right (or) locus standi to file this complaint which is immature. Hence the complaint liable to be dismissed. No cost.
6. Initially the Opposite Party was represented by the counsel and subsequently inspite of sufficient time given, the opposite party did not appear before this Forum. Hence, the opposite party was set exparte. Though the Written Version filed by the opposite party, but neither produced the proof affidavit nor any documents by the opposite party since exparte. While so, proof affidavit has been filed by the complainant and EX.A1 to EX.A7 are marked on the side of the complainant.
7. At this Juncture, the vital points that arises for consideration are:
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2) To what relief the complainant is entitled to?
8. POINT NO.1:- It is a simple case to show how the official of the insurance company behaved with the complainant, when the complainant had approached to insure his two-wheeler for 3rd party risk. Admittedly the complainant had approached the opposite party insurance company to renew the Insurance policy which had expired on 25.06.2005 and to obtain 3rd party insurance. The Branch Manager of the insurance company insisted the complainant to take comprehensive insurance policy and refused to accept the proposal for 3rd party risk Insurance policy. It is the right of the complainant either to take comprehensive Insurance Policy or 3rd party Insurance Policy. The insurance company has no right to insist the owner of the vehicle to take comprehensive policy. The complainant then obtained 3rd party insurance policy from the Ambathur Branch of the United India Insurance Company. Since the opposite party did not appeared before this forum and produced any evidence and documents to substantiate the contention arrived in his written version and subsequently, he was set exparte.
Therefore there is no contra evidence to the complainant’s allegation. At the outset on considering the material on record that the averments in the complaint are unchallenged. Therefore this forum can easily be concluded without any hesitation that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Thus point No. 1 is answered accordingly.
6. Point No.2:- In view of the conclusion arrived in point No. 1, it is decided that the complainant is entitled for reasonable compensation with cost. Thus point No. 2 is answered accordingly.
In the Result, this Complaint is allowed in part. Accordingly, the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as compensation for mental agony to the complainant and Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) as cost of this complaint with interest of 9% P.A from 21.06.2013 till the date of this order. Total amount Rs. 12,500/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand Five Hundred Only).
The above amount shall be payable within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment.
Dictated directly by the president to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by her, correctly by the president and pronounced by us in the open forum on this the 29th July-2015.
Sd/-*** Sd/-*** Sd/-***
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
List of Complainant Documents:
Ex.A1 Dt. - - Xerox Copy of Policy for a period from 26.06.2004 To
25.06.2005
Ex.A2 Dt. 22.07.2005- Xerox Copy of Proposal for the renewal of previous Policy
Ex.A3 Dt.25.07.2005- Xerox Copy of Notice by the complainant
Ex.A4 Dt.04.08.2005- Xerox Copy of Reply from the Ombudsman (Insurance)
Ex.A5 Dt. - - Xerox Copy of served Ack. Card from the Manager
Grievance Cell, Chennai
Ex.A6 Dt. - - Xerox Copy of Renewed Policy issued by Ambathur
Branch
Ex.A7 Dt. - - Xerox Copy of Policy for complainant’s Car.
List of Opposite Party Documents: -Nil-
Sd/-*** Sd/-*** Sd/-***
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
