BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No: 504/2002 Dated: 30..01..2010 Complainant:
T.C. Jacob, BNRA 49, Benedict Nagar, Nalanchira, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 015.
Opposite party:
Oriental Insurance Company, Rohini Building, Thakaraparampu Road, Thiruvananthapuram 695 023.
(By Adv. G.S. Kalkura)
This O.P having been heard on 25..01..2010, the Forum on 30..01..2010 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:
Brief facts giving rise to the filing of this complaint are as follows: Complainant had taken a third party insurance from Oriental Insurance Company on 30/9/2002. Complainant has pleaded that the insurance premium of the above company was nearly 300/- increase, than the previous year. However they are only allowed to increase 30% as per government instruction. The complainant is using his car for the last 21 years and never claimed any money from Insurance Company. Hence prays that opposite party be directed to pay back the un-authorised payment taken from the complainant or to give insurance for the coming years. Complainant has further stated that opposite parties are now charging excess payment according to engine capacity whereas any small buses etc.. they charge tax according to seating capacity. Third party insurance of all Ambassador car whether diesel or petrol should be the same as third party insurance claim does not cover the charges of damage of car or its engine. Complainant also claims compensation for harassment.
2. In the version submitted by the opposite party, it has been contended that the complaint is not maintainable. They further contend that the allegation of the complainant that the insurance premium of the company was nearly 300 increase than the previous year is not fully correct and are denied. Since the complaint pertains to pricing of the policy the Hon'ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint of this nature. With regard to charging of the premium the Tariff Advisory Committee has laid down rules, regulations, rates, advantages, terms and conditions for transactions of Motor Insurance Business in India according to the provisions of Part II B of the Insurance Act, 1938. The basis of charging of premium for vehicles whether on the basis of engine capacity or on the basis of the seating capacity is as per Tariff Advisory Committee guidelines and the Hon'ble Forum has no jurisdiction to consider the rationale or sit in judgment over the decision making authority of the committee. The allegations that the opposite parties are allowed to increase 30% as per government instruction is incorrect and are denied. The Hon'ble High Court based on various petitions filed by the public before the Hon'ble High Court passed orders holding that the company can realise additional premium from those vehicles where claim has been laid against such vehicles. The opposite party based on the instructions of the controlling office refunded the premium collected by the opposite party and in the case of the complainant the opposite party had refunded the premium of Rs.735/- vide cheque No. 022452 dated 23/4/2003. In view of the settlement of the entire claim and the payment of the amount collected by the opposite party which was accepted by the complainant as full and final settlement of all his claims and without any protest or demur the complainant is estopped from claiming any further amount from the opposite party for any reason whatsoever. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Complainant has been examined as PW1 and documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P3 subject to objection. DW1 has been examined on behalf of opposite party and marked Ext. D1. 4. From the contentions raised, following issues arise for consideration:
Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum? Whether there is any deficiency in service on behalf of the opposite party? Reliefs & Costs?
5. Point. No.(i) : The allegation of the complainant is that the Insurance Co. is allowed to increase 30% as per government instruction but has increased more than the above. Furthermore complainant pleads that since the 3rd party insurance claim does not cover the charges of damage of car or its engine, 3rd party insurance of all Ambassador car should be the same. The opposite party has contended that based on the decision of the Tariff Advisory Committee and in compliance thereof decided to implement the new tariff rate fixed by the committee with effect from 1/7/2002 and the opposite party were permitted to hike the premium initially based on adverse claim experience of the vehicle and the individual risk perception as per insurers assessment for liability policies and if the claim experience continues to be adverse the opposite party were permitted to further enhance the premium.
6. Furthermore, the opposite party has contended that based on the instructions of the Controlling Office, the opposite party had refunded the premium of Rs.735/- vide cheque dated 23/4/2003. Complainant as PW1 has deposed that “എന്നില്നിന്നും ഈടാക്കിയ അധിക തുകയായ 735/- രൂപ തിരികെ തന്നിട്ടുണ്ട്” ." Here the matter to be considered is whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The sole case of the complainant is that excess charge has been collected from him. Complainant has sworn that, the refund of Rs.735/- is a clear evidence for the refund of illegal excess charges. The opposite party contends that premium is sole prerogative of the company which the complainant has no manner of right to dictate terms or advise the opposite party the method of calculating the premium and the collection, fixation of premium are at the sold discretion of the opposite party which are fixed at by the opposite party taking into account various factors. Further the opposite party's counsel produced the ruling of the Hon'ble National Commission reported in III (2006) CPJ 206 (NC) in Radha Nand Singh Vs. Bihar State Housing Board wherein it has been held that the Consumer Fora cannot go into the question of pricing. The learned counsel for the opposite party produced the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in II (2003) CPJ 7(SC) in Archana M. Kamath Vs. Canara Bank & another, wherein it has been referred that "The National Commission held that the charges which the Banks chose to levy, for providing their services by supply of MICR cheques, fell in the realm pricing. It is on account of consideration for providing banking services. Hence it was not within the jurisdiction of the Forums to go into that question relating to pricing of such services". Further it has been held by the Hon'ble Suprme Court that the order passed by the National Commission calls for no interference.
7. It is a settled position that the Consumer Forums cannot go into the question of 'pricing'. In this case before us, the only dispute is with regard to excess amount charged by way of premium. The Tariff Advisory Committee is the authority which fix the premium based on rules, regulation rates etc. Hence this question of pricing cannot be gone into by the Consumer Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. This case being a clear case of question of pricing, we are of the view that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and the complaint is found not maintainable before this Forum.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to seek his remedy, if any, before the appropriate Court of law. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 30th day of January, 2010.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI.A., MEMBER.
ad.
O.P. No. 504/2002
APPENDIX
1. Complainant's witness:
PW1 : T.C. Jacob
II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Photocopy of private car package policy
P2 : " certificate of Insurance of private car
P3 : " certificate – cum - policy schedule
III. Opposite party's witness:
DW1 : P.P. Krishna Moorthy IV IV. Opposite party's documents:
D1 : Photocopy of India Motor Tariff
PRESIDENT
| 
