DOF.15.7.06 DOO.02.11.10 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Preethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 2nd day of November 2010 CC.No.168/2006 T.P.Assootty, Palakkat House, P.O.Mambram (Rep. by Adv.Vivekanand.P) Complainant 1. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Reg.Office, 3 Middleton Street, P.BNo.4229, Kolkatta 71. 2. Divisional Manger, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Divisional Office, VII, Ist floor, Mamoji Centre, S 7, Athiruvika Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 32. Opposite parties 3. Regional Manger, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, Kannur. (Rep. by Adv.V.K.Rajeev for Ops 1 to 3) O R D E R Sri.K.Gopalan, President This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.13225/- being the amount of insurance premium paid in advance by the complainant under the insurance policy 1.1.05 to 17.10.05 and to pay an amount of Rs.25, 000/- as compensation together with cost. The complainant has insured his vehicle Bus under the policy No.501602131/04/6319474 for the period 2004-05 paying the entire premium Rs.16, 620/-. The said period expired on 17.10-.05. On January 2005 the vehicle was kept in S.M. Auto garage for repair and repainting. While so the bus was attached by a 3rd party with the order of Munsiff Court, Taliparamba and kept under court custody from 1.1.2000. The complainant having paid the entire premium under the above said insurance policy for one year had approached the regional office of opposite party at Kannur to get the period of his policy extended till the vacating of the attachment order. But 3rd opposite party rejected to do so. It is the usual practice of the 1st opposite party that they used underwrite the period of insurance policy, when the insured vehicle is not in a running condition due to any mechanical failure and under such circumstances which are beyond control of the owner. In spite of explaining the reason why he was not able to ply the vehicle bus third opposite party refused to extend the period of insurance coverage. On 12.11.05 complainant sent a letter to second opposite party and reply received on 17.11.05 intimating that the opposite parties had stopped underwriting policies with effect from March 2005. Even though the complainant insured the vehicle under the above said policy in the year 2004 the opposite party had not cared to issue any prior notice to the complainant that they are going to stop the under writing the insurance policies with effect from March. This violation of condition caused the complainant a loss of Rs.13, 225/- being the insurance premium for the period of 1.1.05 to 17.10.05 which the complainant had already paid in advance to the opposite parties. Hence this complaint. Pursuant to the notice opposite parties entered appearance and filed version jointly denying the main allegations of the complainant and stating as follows. Opposite parties admitted that the vehicle was insured for the period from 18.10.04 to 17.10.05 but they are not liable to refund the premium. The premium is collected for one year. The question of extending the period of insurance under any circumstances does not arise. If the vehicle is kept idle without plying the insurance company is not liable to refund the premium. The attachment of third party does not have any relevance for refunding the premium. The premium was paid based on the contract with the owner of the vehicle subject to the payment of any loss or liability arising out the use of the insured vehicle in the public place. There is no basis for refund of the premium as per the policy conditions and as per the All India Motor Tariff. Moreover, the opposite parties are not bound to renew the said policy after the expiry of one year since the insurance cover for the one year period from 18.10.04 to 17.10.05 was taken by M/s.Shriram Investments Ltd. For the entire vehicle for which they have financed including the vehicle of the complainant based on the Memorandum of understanding singed between M/s.Shriram Investment Ltd. The opposite party Insurance company Ltd., Divisional Office, and Chennai. In March 2005 the Memorandum of understanding was terminated under mutual agreement and the opposite party closed their office at the premises of Shriram Investments Ltd. And thereby no renewal of the policies was carried out after that. Hence the complainant’s contention that the opposite party had refused to renew the policy is not sustainable. Complainant is not entitled for any relief. Hence to dismiss the complaint. On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite Parties? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any remedy as Prayed in the complaint? 3. Relief and cost. The evidence consists of PW1, DW1, Exts.A1to A4, and Ext.B1. Issue Nos.1 to 3 Admittedly the vehicle of the complainant had insured with National Insurance Company Ltd. It was insured for the period from 18.10.04. Ext.A1 is the policy schedule which reveals that the vehicle had been insured for the period from 18.10.2004 to 17.10.2005. The averment of the complainant is that the insured vehicle was attached by Munsiff Court, Tliparamba and kept its custody from 1.1.05 onwards by which he was not able to ply the vehicle. The complainant also alleged that the RTO has duly informed the factum of seizure to the opposite parties which the opposite party denied. Complainant has not adduced any evidence to this effect. The main allegation of the complainant is that he had approached the Regional office of opposite party at Kannur to get the period of the policy extended till the attachment order of the Munsiff court vacated. Opposite party contended that once the vehicle is insured the insurer is liable to indemnify the insured for that period. Even if the vehicle is kept idle or in judicial custody if any injury or damage is caused to a third party in any way even in case of any body parts of stationary vehicle falls on the pedestrian and sustains injury the insurer will have the liability to indemnify the insured. Hence the opposite party contended that after the period of insurance is over the insured cannot claim for an extension of the period of insurance or for a refund of the premium paid. The complainant send Ext.A3 dt.12.11.2005 to the Insurance company or to take steps to extent the period of insurance coverage from 17.10.2005 stating the reason that he could not pay the vehicle since the vehicle had been kept idle in the compound of Taliparamba police station by the order of attachment of Munsiff court Taliapramba. It is clear that the letter requesting to extend the validity of insurance send nearly after one month of expiry of policy period. What prevented complainant from requesting the company to extend the period during the existence of validity of Insurance has not been reasonabily explained. When insurance is taken for the period of one year the rights and liabilities ends when the period is over. If any possibility of any right exists in any way the burden is upon the complainant to bring out the way in which he is entitled for such right. Complainant alleges that it is the usual practice of the 1st opposite party that they used to underwrite the period of insurance policy in certain cases where the vehicle is not in a running condition which is beyond the control of the vehicle owner. But complainant did not adduce any evidence to that effect or brought before the Forum any material that leads to assume that the allegation deserves of consideration. Any how the contention of opposite party with respect to termination of Memorandum of Association is not at all sustainable. Complainant has the case that the RTO has duly informed the Facutm of seizure to the opposite party. But complainant has not produced any document to prove this. If any such information has been given that is a part of recardical transaction and the evidence of which remains with the officers of the RTO. Complainant did not take initiative to bring these facts before the Forum. If such evidence is brought before the Forum it is easy to conclude that the opposite party is aware of the actual circumstances of keeping the vehicle idle etc. Ultimately it is not at all clear what are the basis upon which complainant depend up on claiming the premium refunded. He has not pointed out any terms and conditions that make the opposite party liable to extend the validity of insurance as alleged by the complainant after expiry of period from which premium was paid. In the light of the evidence available the complainant failed to establish his case proving that the opposite party is liable for deficiency in service. Hence we are of opinion that complainant is not entitled for any remedy as prayed in the complaint. Hence the issues 1 to 3 are found against complainant. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1.Policy issued by OP A2.Copy of the receipt issued by S.M.Auto garage 3.Copy of the letter dt.12.11.05 sent to OP A4.Reply sent by the OP Exhibits for the opposite party B1. Copy of the policy Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant Witness examined for the opposite party DW1.Sankarankutty. /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
