Delhi

New Delhi

CC/147/2014

Sh. Rakesh Titu - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

21 Dec 2018

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTRICT NEW DELHI,  M-BLOCK, 1^ST FLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P. ESTATE. NEW DELHI-1100001.

 

C.C.No.147/2014                                      Dated

 

 

Sh. Rakesh Tiku,

S/o L. Sh. M.N. Tiku,

R/o B-28, Pamposh Enclave,

Greater Kailash,

New  Delhi-48.

Through  POA Mr. Geetesh Meena.

Vs.

 

1. TATA AIG GENERAL  INSURNCE CO. LTD.,

           Through its Chairman/Managing Director,

            Having its Registered Office at

             A-501, 5^th floor building no.4,

             Infinity park, Dindoshi, Malad(East), Mumbai-400097.

 

Also at:

310-311 Ashoka Estate, 3^rd Floor,

Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place,

H.O. Delhi, New Delhi-110001.

 

2. Mr. Nitin Srivastave,

        Agent/Broker Licence Code 1988985,

         Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

          New Delhi

           I/E, Jhandewalan, New Delhi.

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

O R D E R

 

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is owner of vehicle bearing  No.DL-4C-AN-6227 duly insured with OP  for a period from 25.07.2012 to  24.07.2013.  It is alleged by the complainant that OP-2 contacted the complainant on behalf of OP-1 being agent for renewal of the policy in respect of above said vehicle.  It is submitted that OP-1 charged a premium of Rs.15,820/- from the complainant which was paid by him vide cheque bearing No.040993 dated 20.7.13 and the cover-note bearing No.WM12255523 was issued for the period from 25.7.13 to 24.7.14. 

2.     It is further submitted that vide letter dated 12.10.13 and 24.10.13, OP-1 illegally cancelled the cover-note  No.WM12255523 on the pretext of premium short fall of Rs.5104/-.  It is alleged that the complainant contacted OP-1  and informed that he had paid a cheque of Rs.15,820/- towards premium as advised by OP-2.

3.     In  response to the same, OP  admitted  that there was some goof-up at their end  due to which a cheque of Rs.10,872.15  was wrongly dispatched and asked him to  return and further assured the complainant that the policy is in force and fresh policy would be issued soon.  It is further stated that complainant finally received policy dated 21.11.13 covering the risk for the period from 25.7.13 to 24.4.14  whereas it should have been upto 24.7.14 as mentioned in original cover note issued by the OP.  It is further alleged that the complainant sent an email to customer care but till date no response was given by the OP, regarding the rectification of the policy, hence this complaint.

4.     Complaint has been contested by OP-1.  OP-1 has filed its written statement, wherein at Para-4 sub para (e) of  its written statement submits that on checking the facts OP-1 found that OP-2 inadvertently collected less premium from the complainant and as such the complainant was asked to return back  the cheque of Rs.10,872/- and thereafter reinstate the policy in question and issued the  policy dated 21.11.13 covering the risk for the period from 25.7.13 to 24.4.14.   It is further stated that due to inadvertence the policy period was wrongly stated to be 25.7.13 to 24.4.14, however, as per OP-1 record, the policy was valid uptp 24.7.14 as prayed by the complainant in his complaint.  It is further submitted that since the grievance of the complainant was already redressed by OP-1, no deficiency in services alleged if any is not on the part of OP-1, hence, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.     Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavit.

6.     We have heard arguments advanced at Bar,  perused the pleadings and evidence adduced on record by parties.

7.     In the present complaint, OP-1 in its written statement, at Para-4 sub para (e) itself admitted that  on checking the facts it was found that OP-2 inadvertently collected less premium from the complainant and as such the complainant was asked to return back  the cheque of Rs.10,872/- and thereafter reinstate the policy in question and issued the  fresh policy dated 21.11.13 covering the risk for the period from 25.7.13 to 24.4.14.  Hence, it is not liable for deficiency in services as the grievance of the complainant was already redressed by it.  Per contra, it is argued on behalf of complainant that at the instance of OP-2, he had paid a premium of Rs.15,820/- against the renewal of the policy.  OP-1 arbitrarily cancelled the policy under the pretext of short premium without verifying the facts or giving an opportunity to the complainant to plead his case.  It is further submitted that the policy in question was reinstated by the OP-1 only after continuous  persuasion and follow-up by the complainant, hence, he is entitled for compensation on account of mental agony, harassment as well as litigation cost.

8.     We are in agreement with the contention of the counsel for complainant.  Admission on the part of OP-1 in its pleadings regarding the facts that the policy was inadvertently cancelled under the pretext of short premium was actually due to the mistake of OP-2 who had collected less premium from the complainant.  Naturally in such a circumstances, the complainant has to run from pillar to post for getting his policy instated, hence, in our view, he  is entitled for compensation on account of mental agony, harassment as well as litigation cost.

9.     In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the OP-1 is guilty of deficiency in services. We therefore hold, OP-1 guilty of deficiency in services and direct it as under:

1. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment.

 

2. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost.

 

      The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order. If the said amount is not paid by the OP within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, the same shall be recovered by the complainant along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till recovery of the said amount. This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post.

 

Announced in open Forum on 21/12/2018. 

 

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

          PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                  (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                                MEMBER