Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/398/2017

Naveen Sheokand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Policybazaar Insurance Web aggregator Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Kriteka Sheokand

15 May 2018

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/398/2017
Date of Institution	:	12/05/2017
Date of Decision	:	15/05/2018

 

Naveen Sheokand S/o Sh. Jasbir Singh, R/o H.No.3133, Sector                      28-D, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

1)      Policybazaar Insurance Web Aggregator Pvt. Limited, Plot No.119, Sector 44, Gurugram, Haryana – 1220001, through its Manager.

2)      Liberty Videocon General Insurance, 10^th Floor, Tower A, Peninsuala Business Park Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013, through its Manager.

…… Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	SH.RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                               

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Naveen Sheokand, Counsel for Complainant.
		Sh. Karanvir Singh Jawandah, Counsel for OP No.1
		Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OP No.2.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

1.         Sh. Naveen Sheokand, Complainant has preferred this Consumer Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Policybazaar Insurance Web Aggregator Pvt. Limited & Another (hereinafter called the Opposite Party), alleging that he purchased an insurance policy online for his registered car bearing No. CH01AX3300 on 04.04.2017 and paid the requisite premium of Rs.9967/-, but till date no insurance policy was issued to him. The Complainant approached the Opposite Parties by every possible means for issuance of the policy as his previous insurance policy was going to expire on 08.04.2017, but to no success. It has been averred that the Opposite Parties have been deliberately not discharging their part of obligations and thus have been deficient in their services besides being involved in malpractices by misrepresenting and duping the Complainant to part with his hard earned money without any intent to fulfill the obligations undertaken. Eventually, the Complainant got served a legal notice dated 26.04.2017 upon the Opposite Parties, which also failed to fructify.  With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Party No.1 opposed the Complaint by filing its written statement, inter alia, admitting the factual matrix of the case. It has been pleaded that pursuant to purchase of the policy by the Complainant on 04.04.2017, Opposite Party No.1 regularly followed with Opposite Party No.2 for the issuance of the policy to him. However, on being intimated by Opposite Party No.1 that the vehicle for which the Complainant had sought to purchase the policy, was already insured in the name of Anand Medical Store, the Opposite Party No.1 took up the matter with Opposite Party No.2, who in turn refunded the premium of Rs.9967/- to the Complainant on 11.05.2017 under due intimation. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Opposite Party No.2 filed its reply, inter alia, pleading that when the transaction flowed from Opposite Party No.1 to the answering Opposite Party for issuance of the policy, the system identified that the vehicle bearing Registration No.CH01AX3300 for which insurance cover was being sought by the Complainant is already insured in the name of M/s Ananda Medical Store for the period from 13.06.2016 to 12.06.2017. As such, the vehicle being already insured, the answering Opposite Party was not in a position to issue overlapping policies for same vehicle in different names. The same was informed by the answering Opposite Party to Opposite Party No.1 vide e-mail dated 14.04.2017. Eventually, the entire amount of Rs.9967/- was refunded to the Complainant. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.         The Complainant also filed replication to the written statement filed by the Opposite Party, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Party have been controverted.
6.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
7.         We have gone through the entire evidence, written arguments filed on behalf of the parties and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Parties.
8.         In the present case, the Complainant bought an insurance policy, on-line, from Opposite Parties, but despite charging for the same, Opposite Parties did not issue the policy even after the expiry of the previous policy of the vehicle in question. The excuse taken by the Opposite Parties is that some other vehicle with same registration number was already insured from 13.06.2016 to 12.06.2017 in the name of one M/s Ananda Medical Store. Both the Opposite Parties kept on communicating with each other, but without any fruitful results. Ultimately, the Complainant had to buy the Policy from some other Insurance Company. It also has been alleged by the Complainant that though the amount paid to the Opposite Parties, was refunded to him after a period of more than one month, yet there is deficiency in service on their part. Hence, the present Complaint.
9.         The stand taken by Opposite Party No.1 is that it regularly followed the Opposite Party No.2 for issuance of the Policy for the vehicle of the Complainant, but on being learnt from Opposite Party No.2 that the vehicle for which the Complainant was seeking to purchase the Policy, was already insured in the name of one M/s Ananda Medical Store, the amount of premium i.e. Rs.9967/- had been refunded to the Complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on its part.
10.         On the other hand, Opposite Party No.2 maintained that since it was not in a position to issue overlapping policies for the same vehicle in different names, therefore, the amount of premium was refunded to the Complainant. Thus, there is no case of deficiency in service qua it.   
11.         It is evident from Annexure C-1 that the Complainant paid an amount of Rs.9967/- for the Policy in question on 4.4.17, before the expiry of his previous Policy i.e. 8.4.17, which is evident from Annexure C-10. Annexure C-2 to C-6 are the various e-mail communications between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties, which show that Opposite Parties kept on directing the Complainant to wait for some time, for the issuance of the Policy, as they were finding some discrepancy in their record.
12.         Although, admittedly, the amount of Rs.9967/-, which the Complainant paid as premium, was refunded to him, yet we feel that the Complainant had to undergo tremendous trauma/mental harassment in the absence of the Policy.  It is a matter of fact that when the Policy is not with the Consumer/the vehicle owner, then either the vehicle cannot be run on the road or if while driving the Consumer/ the vehicle owner had to face sudden accident, then what can be the consequences of the same in the absence of the insurance policy, the same cannot even be estimated. As per the definition of deficiency in service which is prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, when an officer is authorized to do a particular act in a prescribed manner by a statute and if he fails or acts in different manner which causes inconvenience and damage to any person, definitely the same would amount to deficiency in service as far as that consumer is concerned. In the present case also, the negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties is writ large which is definitely against the marketing statics and norms. Hence the act of the Opposite Parties for non-issuing the Policy, despite charging the requisite premium and later on refunding the same, at a belated stage, proves deficiency in service on their part, which has certainly caused unprecedented harassment to the Complainant. Had, Opposite Parties been vigilant in refunding the amount promptly, complainant would not have been put to unnecessary harassment and mental tension, who otherwise had to knock at the door of this Forum for seeking redressal by expending money on litigation. So on account of inconvenience and expenditure incurred by the complainant, Rs.50,000/- would be just and reasonable to be awarded as compensation, along with Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the present proceedings.
13.         In view of the foregoings, we are of the opinion that the present Complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed. Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed as under:-

[a]    To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

[b]     To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation;

14.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from complying with the directions as contained in sub-para [b] above. 
15.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
15/05/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”