SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT
Complainant has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 seeking to get an order directing opposite party either to extend the policy in question for a further period of 6 months from 07/01/2022 or to refund Rs.26,000/- half of the policy, to the complainant along with Rs.25,000/- towards compensation alleging deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.
Brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant is the registered RC owner of the stage carriage bus bearing No.KL 13/L/9 plying in the route Kannur HQ Hospital to Pulluppikadavu. The complainant has insured above the vehicle before the OP as per the policy No.3002843120101952675 with effect from 03/06/2020 to mid night of 02/06/2021. The complainant submits that the above bus could not operated in the route as stage carriage for the period due to the pandemic covid 19 and the result lock down for the period from 01/08/2020 till 10/03/2021 for a period of more than 7 months. Accordingly this complainant requested the OP to extend the above policy and accordingly the above policy was extended till 07/01/2022 as per the RTO certificate and issued an extension policy certificate beading No. 3002843120101952675 policy effective from 03/06/2020 and expiring on 07/01/2022 for the stage carriage bus KL 13/L/9 with an endorsement of change in policy period of insurance.
The complaint submitted that during the 2nd wave of the pandemic covid 19 the complainant could not operate the insured vehicle for a period from 01/06/2021 to 30/11/2021 (6 months) as a result, complainant has to kept the vehicle idle after giving no use intimation to the Motor vehicle department. The MVI granted tax exemption during the above period. The complainant has approached the OP and applied for the extension of the insurance period of the policy expiring on 07/01/2022 . The OP has returned the entire file to the complainant orally stating the they are not prepared to extend the policy and further. This complainant submits that there is deficiency of service on the part of OP and as a result this complainant has suffered huge loss both mentally and monetary. Complainant stated that OP is bound to extend the policy also for a further period of 6 months or refund Rs.26,000/- towards 50% of the policy amount. According to the complainant rejection of the said application for extension of policy period by OP is deficiency of service on the part of OP. Hence this complaint.
After receiving notice, OP entered appearance through counsel and filed their written version admitting that the complainant vehicle No. KL-13-L9 has insurance policy with OP for a period from 03/06/2020 to 02/06/2021 as per policy number referred in the complaint. It is also an admitted fact that validity period of the said policy was extended for a period from 03/06/2021 to 07/01/2022 on account of lay up of the vehicle. OP contended that it was granted as per the provisions under India Motor Tariff (IMT). GR 31(General Regulation) under IMT is the relevant Regulation for concession for laid up vehicles. As per the said regulation, extension of period of insurance can be given only for the period of lay-up within the original period of validity under the subject policy. It further provides entitlement for extension only if there is minimum laid up period of 2 months. The complainant’s claim involved in the complaint is for extension of period from 01/06/2021 to 30/11/2021. During this period, number of days coming within the original validity period were only 2 days for which the complainant is not entitled for extension under Regulation 31. Insured is not entitled of extension of validity period for the laid up period occurring within the extension period. It was for this reason, the complainant’s claim for extension was rejected. Complainant’s claim for extension of validity period was declined according to law and as per the terms and conditions in the policy and IMT. Due to the above reasons, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
At the evidence stage, complainant has filed his chief affidavit and documents. He was examined as Pw1 and documents were marked as Ext.A1 to A7. OP has submitted two documents. Subject policy with terms and conditions marked as Ext.B1 and Regulations of India Motor Tariff (IMT) as Ext.B2. After that learned counsels of both parties made oral argument. The learned counsel of OP has submitted one judgment of Hon’ble High court of Kerala for reference.
The question to be decided
- Whether the repudiation of the complainant’s application to extend the policy from 07/01/2022 for a further period of 6 months due to laid up of the insured vehicle for a period from 01/06/2021 to 30/11/2021, is justifiable or not?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP.
- If so what relief can be given to the complainant?
Point 1 to 3
Learned counsel of complainant submitted that during the 2nd wave of the pandemic covid 19 the complainant could not operate the insured vehicle for a period form 01/06/2021 to 30/11/2021 (6 months) as a result, complainant has to keep the vehicle idle after giving no use intimation to the Motor vehicle department. The MVI granted tax exemption during the above period (Ext.A7). Complainant alleged that OP is bound to extend the policy also for a further period of 6 months or refund Rs.26,000/- towards 50% of the policy amount. According to the complainant rejection of the said application for extension of policy period by OP is deficiency of service on the part of OP.
On the other hand OP contended that as per the provisions under India Motor Tariff GR 31(General Regulation) under IMT is the relevant Regulation for concession for laid up vehicles. As per the said regulation, extension of period of insurance can be given only for the period of lay-up within the original period of validity under the subject policy. It further provides entitlement for extension only if there is minimum laid up period of 2 months. The complainant’s claim involved in the complaint is for extension of period from 01/06/2021 to 30/11/2021. During this period, number of days coming within the original validity period were only 2 days for which the complainant is not entitled for extension under Regulation 31. Insured is not entitled of extension of validity period for the laid up period occurring within the extension period. It was for this reason, the complainant’s claim for extension was rejected. According to OP there is no deficiency in service on their part in rejecting the application of the complainant.
Here there is no dispute that the complainant vehicle No. KL-13-L9 has insurance policy with OP for a period from 03/06/2020 to 02/06/2021. It is also an admitted fact that validity period of the said policy was extended for a period from 03/06/2021 to 07/01/2022 on account of lay up of the vehicle. OP contended that it was granted as per the provisions under India Motor Tariff (IMT).
In support of the contention of learned counsel of OP in rejection of complainant’s extended application, has relied up on the judgment of the Hon’ble High court of Kerala in the matter of EA Murali Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. in WP(C)No. 22273 of 2020(H) decided on 08/12/2020.
In the said case Hon’ble High Court held that in the absence of a layup for a consecutive period of two months within the currency of policy in question, the petition cannot have any claim for further extension when the period from the policy. The concession under GR31, is subject to fulfillment of the conditions stipulated their GR31(1)(B) or 11(b) can only be the 12 months period of the policy and the policy is not envisaged for a period over and above 12 months. The Hon’ble High court held that, there is no illegally on the part of Insurance Company in not granting any further extension to the policy.
From the above legal position and as per General Regulation 31 of IMT, it is clear that the complainant is not entitled for extension of validity period for the laid up period occurring from 01/06/2021 to 30/11/2021, because there is only 2 days laid up period within the original validity period of Ext.B1 policy.
It is also a settled legal position that under the Insurance contract between the parties, the insurance coverage extended to the insured is subject to its own terms and conditions.
In view of the discussion above and from the above judgment of the Hon’ble High court of Kerala, we are of the opinion that the Insurance company (OP herein) was justified in rejecting the extension application in dispute of the complainant points 1 to 3 found accordingly. Since points 1 and 2 are found against the complainant, there is no question of granting relief to the complainant. According to us there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.
In the result complaint stands dismissed. No order as to cost.
Exts.
A1-Policy
A2- Certificate issued by RTO (Photocopy – Subject to proof)
A3- Receipt issued by OP
A4- Extended policy
A5- Certificate issued by RTO
A6-Receipt issued by Motor vehicle inspector
A7-Receipt issued by Motor vehicle inspector
B1- Policy with terms and conditions
B2- Rules and Regulations of India Motor Tariff(IMT)
Pw1-Complainant
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
