Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

62/2010

S.Sivashankar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Cholamandalam MS General insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

M.Sathyan

04 Oct 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 28.01.2010

                                                                          Date of Order : 04.10.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.62/2010

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 04^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018

                                 

S. Sivasankar,

S/o. Mr. V. Singaram,

No.7, South Tank Street,

Kadaperi,

Chennai – 600 045.                                                      .. Complainant.                                                

 

    ..Versus..

 

M/s. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Manager,

No.120, G.N. Chetty Road, 3^rd Floor,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.                                                   ..  Opposite party.

          

Counsel for complainant      :  M/s. T. Pappaiah Dharmarajan &

                                                 another

Counsel for opposite party  :  M/s. M.B. Gopalan & others

 

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

 

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for damages with cost to the complainant.

 

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he is the owner of goods carrying commercial vehicle Mitshubishi Canter bearing Registration No.TN 04 8037.  The complainant is plying the vehicle for customers on a daily basis and is earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per day.  Further the complainant submits that one Saravanan, an agent of the opposite party approached the complainant in the month of December, 2008 and requested to insure the vehicle with an assurance that prompt and efficient service will be extended to the complainant.   On believing the assurance of the agent , one Saravanan, the complainant insured the vehicle with the opposite party and issued a cheque bearing No.769908 dated:19.12.2008 drawn on HDFC Bank, Chitalapakkam Branch for Rs.8,091/-.  The policy is for the period from 21.12.2008 to 20.12.2009 vide Nos.3379/00314689/000/00 dated:21.12.2008.  But the complainant submits that on 10.12.2009, the said agent Saravanan approached the complainant for renewal of the Insurance Policy.  On the same day, the complainant issued a cheque bearing No.0908659 dated:20.12.2009 drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd. for a sum of Rs.7,839/- and handed over to said Saravanan who promised that the insurance certificate for the subsequent year will be issued immediately.  The cheque was also encashed by the opposite party on 21.12.2009.   Further the complainant submits that even after encashing the cheque towards the insurance policy by the opposite party, he has not issued any Motor Insurance Cover Note or Insurance Certificate.   Hence, the complainant was not able to ply the vehicle from 21.12.2009 to 20.01.2010 due to the negligent act of the opposite party.  Hence, the complainant sustained a loss of Rs.30,000/-.    Further the complainant submits that the opposite party belatedly renewed the policy of insurance and send it through courier on 20.01.2010 containing the Schedule Motor Policy dated:10.01.2010 along with premium Computation Table dated:10.01.2010 and Certificate of Insurance dated:10.01.2010.   The act of the opposite parties caused great mental agony.  Hence the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The opposite party states that the complainant availed the policy of Insurance from the opposite party for the period from 21.12.2008 to 20.12.2009.  The said policy has been renewed from 21.02.2009 to 20.12.2010 vide Policy No.3379/00407147 /000/00 by the opposite party.    Further the opposite party states that as per Section 64- VB of the Insurance Act, without actual realisation of the cheque and receipt of premium the opposite party could not issue a policy earlier.  Hence, even assuming that the complainant had really issued the cheque on 10.12.2009, by dating the cheque on 20.12.2009, it was the complainant who had prevented issue of Policy earlier.  The cheque could not be presented until 20.12.2009 and after realization the Policy has been provided covering the complainant’s vehicle from 21.12.2009 to correspond with the date of cheque and the expiry of the previous policy. The opposite party has various offices throughout the State and Policies can be generated and issued Online at any time.   Further the opposite party states that the compensation claimed is exorbitant and imaginary and there is no proof for monetary loss in this case.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.   Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.    To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party is filed and no documents marked on the side of the opposite party.

4.      The point for consideration is:-

Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for damages and metal agony with cost as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

The complainant filed his written arguments.  Heard the opposite party’s Counsel.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.   The complainant pleaded and contended that he is the owner of goods carrying commercial vehicle Mitshubishi Canter bearing Registration No.TN 04 8037.  The complainant is plying the vehicle for customers on a daily basis and is earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per day.  But the complainant has not produced any document to prove that he is the owner of the vehicle and such daily income.   Further the contention of the complainant is that one Saravanan, an agent of the opposite party approached the complainant in the month of December, 2008 and requested to insure the vehicle with an assurance that prompt and efficient service will be extended to the complainant.   On believing the assurance of the agent , one Saravanan, the complainant insured the vehicle with the opposite party and issued a cheque bearing No.769908 dated:19.12.2008 drawn on HDFC Bank, Chitalapakkam Branch for Rs.8,091/-.  The opposite party also issued Motor Insurance Policy and cover note with premium computation table as per Ex.A1 & Ex.A2.  The policy is for the period from 21.12.2008 to 20.12.2009 vide Nos.3379/00314689/000/00 dated:21.12.2008.  But the complainant contended that on 10.12.2009, the said agent Saravanan approached the complainant for renewal of the Insurance Policy.  On the same day, the complainant issued a cheque bearing No.0908659 dated:20.12.2009 drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd. for a sum of Rs.7,839/- and handed over to said Saravanan who promised that the insurance certificate for the subsequent year will be issued immediately.  The cheque was also encashed by the opposite party on 21.12.2009.   Ex.A3 is the statement of accounts.   

6.     Further the complainant contended that even after encashing the cheque towards the insurance policy by the opposite party, he has not issued any Motor Insurance Cover Note or Insurance Certificate.   Hence, the complainant was not able to ply the vehicle from 21.12.2009 to 20.01.2010 due to the negligent act of the opposite party.  So, the complainant sustained a loss of Rs.30,000/- and also mental agony.  But the complainant  has not produced any record to prove such monetary loss.  Further the complainant contended that the opposite party belatedly renewed the policy of insurance and send it through courier on 20.01.2010 containing the Schedule Motor Policy dated:10.01.2010 along with premium Computation Table dated:10.01.2010 and Certificate of Insurance dated:10.01.2010 as per Ex. A4 to Ex.A8 proves the deficiency in service.   The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for such deficiency in service,  mental agony and monetary loss.

7.     The learned Counsel for the opposite party would contend that admittedly,  the complainant availed the policy of Insurance from the opposite party for the period from 21.12.2008 to 20.12.2009.  The said policy has been renewed from 21.02.2009 to 20.12.2010 vide Policy No.3379/00407147 /000/00  by the opposite party.   But on a careful perusal of Ex.A4, it is apparently seen that

“Subject to I.M.T. Endt. Nos. And Memorandum             :21,40

Date and Signature of the proposal          :10/01/2010

In witness where of this policy has been signed in lieu of

the cover Note No.:  50599981    Date:10/01/2010”

proves that even after encashing the cheque issued towards renewal of policy on 21.02.2009 the policy was issued only on 10.01.2009.  The reason for the delay in issuing belated policy has not been explained by the opposite party.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that as per Section 64- VB of the Insurance Act, without actual realisation of the cheque and receipt of premium the opposite party could not issue a policy earlier.   But in this case, admittedly a post dated cheque issued on 10.12.2009 dated:20.12.2009 was encashed on 21.12.2009 as per Ex.A3 establishes that the opposite party issued policy belatedly on 10.01.2010 proves the deficiency in service.   Further the contention of the opposite party is that the compensation claimed is exorbitant and imaginary and there is no proof for monetary loss in this case.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 04^th day of October 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                            PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANTS’ SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	28.12.2008	Copy of Motor Insurance Cover Note on 7424881
Ex.A2	21.12.2008	Copy of Insurance Certificate No.3379/003141889/000/00
Ex.A3	07.01.2010	Copy of statement of accounts
Ex.A4	10.01.2010	Copy of Schedule Motor Policy
Ex.A5	10.01.2010	Copy of Premium computation table
Ex.A6	10.01.2010	Copy of Certificate of Insurance
Ex.A7	20.01.2010	Copy of Courier cover (2 pages)

 

OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  NIL

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                            PRESIDENT