BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.120 of 2019
Date of Instt. 18.04.2019
Date of Decision:01.12.2022
Tarun Arora aged about 34 years S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Lal Arora R/o W. D. 48-49, Sheikhan Bazar, Ali Mohalla, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Navyug Motors, through its Manager/Authorized Representative, Near Bus Stand, Jalandhar also at GT Road, Near BSF Chowk, Jalandhar.
2. Aditya Birla Insurance Brokers Limited, through its authorized representative/Manager, regd. office at Indian Rayon Compound , Veraval-362266, Gujarat.
3. Aditya Birla Insurance Brokers Limited, through its authorized representative/Manager, SCO 23, 24, 2nd Floor, City Square Complex, Near Kesar Petrol Pump, Jalandhar.
4. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office 2nd Floor, Nirmal Complex, GT Road, Jalandhar through its authorized representative/Manager.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member) Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Gurcharan Singh, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. Kapil Batra, Adv. Counsel for OP No.1.
OPs No.2 & 3 exparte.
Sh. Raman Sharma, Adv. Counsel for OP No.4.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein he has alleged that complainant purchased one motor cycle make Royal Enfield bearing chassis no.ME3U3KSCIKA867091, Engine no.U3K5CIKA896735 from the OP No.1 on 06.01.2019 against invoice no.RM-1106 of Rs.1,17,103/-. However, the OP No.1 issued a separate receipt for Rs.1,33,000/- paid in cash inclusive of invoice value and so also the premium of insurance for issuing policy no.3005/RF-13784618/00/000 for the period from 06.01.2019 to 05.01.2020 showing chassis no.ME3U3KSCIKA867091 and Engine No.U3K5C1KA896735 purchased for the above said motorcycle along with registration charges. The complainant received a letter from the OP No.2 & 3 under a cover of which aforesaid policy schedule/policy was received. All the opposite parties have tie up inter-se between them. To the utter surprise of the complainant, the complainant received a letter of cancellation from the OP No.4 with regard to cancellation of the insurance policy of the said vehicle on the ground that the premium cheque stands bounced. It is evident from the receipt that the OP No.1 has received the amount of invoice, insurance premium and registration charges amounting to Rs.1,33,000/- but the OP No.1 of its own has issued a cheque towards the insurance premium for issuance of policy without making arrangement for honoring the cheque. It is pertinent to mention here that insurance premium has paid in cash by the complainant to OP No.1 for issuance of insurance policy, but the OP No.1 without consent of the complainant has issued the cheque against the insurance premium in favour of OP No.4. Without arranging for honoring of the cheque, which was bounced resulting into cancellation of the insurance policy no.3005/RF-13784618/00/000, consequently causing mental tension, harassment, agony to the complainant. After receipt of cancellation notice, the complainant approached the OP No.1 number of times for getting the policy revived but the OP No.1 did not pay any heed to the repeated request of the complainant for getting the policy revived. Due to the act of the OP No.1, the complainant remained exposed to all possible risks which could has accrued in any incident, resulting in any liability toward third party or to damage to vehicle or loss due to personal accident. The arbitrary act of OP No.1 of issuing cheque towards insurance premium instead of cash and not making arrangements for honoring the cheque tantamount to unfair trade practices and deficiency of services resulting in mental harassment, agony and tension and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay a sum of Rs.8708/- towards insurance premium, Rs.4,00,000/- on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs on account of mental tension, agony, harassment alongwith upto date interest @ 18% per annum and Rs.25,000/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OPs No.2 & 3 did not appear and ultimately OPs No.2 & 3 were proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form. It is further averred that no cause of action was occurred against OP No.1. It is further averred that the complainant has not placed on record actual and factual position, the complainant deposited with the OP No.1 for the insurance of the vehicle in question in cash, accordingly the OP No. I issued a cheque amounting Rs.302069/- in favor of OP No.4 ICICI with regard to insurance premium of the complainant as well as other customers, it is made clear that the premium of all customers was paid by one cheque, however the said cheque was dishonored by 22.01.2019 on account of payment stop by the drawer, the said request was inadvertently made by the banking staff of the OP No.1 whereas the said request was to be given to another bank as such the said cheque was not cleared, the said mistake/error was not noticed by the OP No.1, but on 25.02.2019 as and when the OP No.1 received telephonic call from the complainant apprising the factual position on the same very movement the opposite party got prepared the demand draft in favor of OP No.4 for payment of the insurance policy against the cheque which was dishonored of Rs.3,02,069/-. Thereafter the complainant was informed by the OP No.1 that the premium has been paid and as such the policy under which his risk was covered has been made live by the OP No.1. The complainant despite of knowing the said factual position that his policy was active filed the present complaint just to harass the OP. On merits, the factum with regard to purchasing of motor cycle by the complainant from answering OP is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. OP No.4 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable against this answering OP No.4/ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., as the complainant is not consumer qua this OP. This OP has not received any consideration. The cheque issued towards the insurance premium was dishonored and the insurance cover issued by this OP was cancelled on account of dishonor of insurance premium cheque, as such the complaint against answering OP No. 4 is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that no relief has been claimed from this answering OP No.4 as is evident from para No. 8 of the complaint. The OP No. 4 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. has just been impleded as necessary proforma OP, as such the complaint against this respondent is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the factum with regard to purchasing of motor cycle by the complainant from answering OP is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
4. Rejoinder to the written statement of OP No.1 and OP No.4 filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
5. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
7. The complainant has purchased motor cycle make Royal Enfield from the OP No.1, vide Invoice Ex.C-1 for Rs.1,17,103/-. Ex. C-2 is the receipt showing that Rs.1,33,000/- were received by the OP No.1 from the complainant. As per contention of the complainant, the OP No.1 charged the invoice value as well as premium of insurance for issuing insurance policy bearing No.3005/RF-13784618/00/000 for the period from 06.01.2019 to 05.01.2020. The complainant has proved on record the copy of letter issued by OP No.2 and 3 Ex.C-3, Insurance Cover Ex.C-4. The complainant has also proved on record the RC Ex.C-5. The grudge of the complainant is that despite the payment made by him as a premium for insurance, the insurance policy was cancelled due to dishonor of premium cheque. It has been alleged by the complainant that he never issued cheque in favour of the OP No.4 as a premium, therefore the policy was allegedly wrongfully cancelled.
8. The OP No.1 has admitted that due to dishonor of the cheque issued in favour of the OP No.4, the policy was not issued, however on receipt of complaint and information from the complainant, the OP No.1 got prepared a demand draft in favour of OP No.4 for the payment of the premium for insurance policies against the cheque of Rs.3,02,069/-, which was dishonoured and it has been alleged that after payment of the above said cheque, the policy was revived. Though the OP No.1 has produced on record the copy of the demand draft alongwith written statement to show that they had given Rs.3,02,069/- on 25.02.2019 Ex.D-1 to show that the insurance cover was revived, but there is no document on the file to prove that the insurance cover was ever revived. Even in the written statement filed by the OP No.4 on 24.07.2019, it has no where been mentioned that they have ever received the payment of Rs.3,02,069/- from the OP No.1. They have also not stated anywhere in the written statement that the insurance cover and the policy of the complainant was revived as they had received the payment. It is alleged by the OP No.1 that the payment of premium was made through cheque, which was consisting of the amount of many customers for insurance policy, but there is no such document to prove this fact. This fact is proved that the complainant never issued any cheque in favour of OP No.4. The cheque was issued by the OP No.1 which got dishonoured. The complainant had already made the payment to the OP No.1 for the insurance policy as a premium, but due to the negligence of the OP No.1, the insurance policy was cancelled. There is no document on the file to show that it was ever revived as alleged by OP No.1. There is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.1 as it was their duty to get in touch with the OP No.4 and to know about the fact as to whether the cheque issued by them was encashed or not, but this was not done by the OP No.1, therefore this is unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.1. As per para no.8 of the complaint, OPs No.2 to 4 are performa OPs and no relief has been claimed against them. So, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed against OP No.1 only. The OP No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.8708/-, the amount given by complainant as premium for insurance alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing complaint till its realization. Further, OP No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. HarveenBhardwaj
01.12.2022 Member Member President
