Tamil Nadu

Nagapattinam

CC/62/2011

J.Annalsanthakumari - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.K.S.Automobiles and Three others. - Opp.Party(s)

S.Nadarajan

08 Jul 2014

ORDER

Date of Filing      : 22.12.2011

                                                                                       Date of Disposal: 08.07.2014

                                                                   

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

NAGAPATTINAM

 

PRESENT: THIRU.P.G.RAJAGOPAL, B.A.B.L.,         …..PRESIDENT

    THIRU.A.BASHEER AHAMED,B.Com., ….  MEMBER I

               Tmt. R.GEETHA, B.A.,                             …. MEMER II

 

 

CC. No.62/2011

 

DECIDED ON THIS   08^th   DAY OF JULY 2014.

 

 

J. Annal Santhakumari,

No.7/4, Bungalow Club Road,

 Velipalayam,Nagapattinam.                                        …..      Complainant

                                                                                                  

                                                                /versus/

                                   

1.   S.K.S. Automobiles,

No.2/152, Cmalur Main Road(NH 7),

Manangam Post, Jagir Reddipatty,

Salem – 636 302.

2.   Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

G.E. Plaza, Airport Road,

Yerwada, Pune – 411 006.

3.   Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

      No.15, Kelaman complex,

          1^st Floor, Saradha Colbge

           Main Road, Alagapuram,

           Salem.

4.   Indian Overseas Bank,

      Neela South Street,

      Nagapattinam.

5.   Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

      No.201-208, Crystal Plaza, Opp.Infinity Mall,

      Link Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400 058.           ….. Opposite parties

 

  

 

 

 

This complaint having come up for final hearing before us on 24.06.2014, on perusal of the material records and on hearing the arguments of Thiru. S.Natarajan Counsel for the complainant, Thiru.Veerapandiyan, Counsel for the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties, and  the 1^st, 4^th and 5^th  opposite parties having been set parte and having stood for consideration, till this day the Forum  passed the following

 

      ORDER.

     By the President, Thiru.P.G.Rajagopal, B.A.B.L., 

This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. 

                        2. The gist of the complaint filed by the complainant is that the complainant got a quotation from the 1^st  opposite party for purchase of Bolero VLX B.S. III four wheeler vehicle  and as per the quotation the showroom price of the vehicle is Rs.637801/-, insurance Rs.21207/- registration and handling charges Rs.4000/- all  totaling Rs.731788/-.  The complainant paid Rs.10000/- as advance on 19.11.2010, the balance Rs.721788/- was agreed to be paid at the time of delivery of the vehicle.  The complainant approached the 4^th opposite party to avail a loan of Rs.500000/- and therefore the balance of Rs.221788/-was deposited by the complainant.  The 4^th opposite party issued a demand draft No.660301245, Dt.04.12.2010 for Rs.700581/- after deducting the premium amount of Rs.21207/- for the insurance. The said demand draft was drawn in favour of the 1^st opposite party.  The insurance coverage was made by the 5^th opposite party for the sum of Rs.20300/-, The complainant along with the demand draft attached Xerox copy of the insurance cover note and explained to the 1^st opposite party that the insurance of the vehicle is already made.   But the 1^st opposite party without the knowledge and consent of the complainant reinsured the vehicle in Bajaj Alliance Group on 24.12.2010 for Rs.21924/- while delivering in the vehicle.  Thus the 1^st opposite party has committed deficiency of service and when the complainant personally asked the 1^st opposite party to cancel the reinsurance made with the 3^rd opposite party neither of them did take any interest to cancel the insurance and refund the premium. 

3. The complainant issued the lawyer’s notice on 01.08.2011 to the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.  But none of them have neither replied nor complied with the demand even though received the notice.  The complainant therefore prays for an order to direct the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.21924 and to pay cost of the complaint granting such and other relief as this Hon’ble Forum would  deem fit.

                        4. The gist of the written version filed by the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties is that the vehicle sold and delivered by the 1^st opposite party to the buyer could not be plied on the road, without insurance under the Motor Vehicles Act.  The 1^st opposite party used to get all the vehicles sold by him insured by this opposite party and likewise the complainant’s vehicle was also insured with the 3^rd opposite party.  The vehicle was insured for the period from 24.12.2010 to 23.12.2011.  The complainant without any protest  received the bills for purchase of the vehicle and the insurance cover of this opposite party and he had not informed either the 3^rd opposite party or the 1^st opposite party that  he had already insured the vehicle with the 5^th opposite party.  Further the 3^rd opposite party has not received any cancellation notice from the complainant.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The vehicle was purchased by the complainant at Salem and the office of the 3^rd opposite party is also at Salem, which is beyond the jurisdiction of this Forum.  This Forum not got no jurisdiction to deal with this complaint as the cause of action for this complaint has not at all arisen, within the  jurisdiction of this Forum and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

                        5. The gist of the additional written version filed by  the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties is that the opposite parties never received any legal notice as alleged by the complainant.  The complainant has never addressed, the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties requesting for cancellation of the policy and refund of the premium amount.  Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

                        6. The complainant filed his proof affidavit and filed 7 documents which are marked as Exhibits A1 to A7.  One Senior Executive of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties filed his proof affidavit on their behalf.  Written arguments have been submitted by the complainant, as well as the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.

7. Points for consideration:-

1. Whether this Forum has got territorial jurisdiction to try this complaint?
2. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what?

 

8.Point 1: No doubt that this Forum could not have the territorial Jurisdiction to try this complaint but for the  presence  of the 4^th opposite party in this complaint.  The contention of the opposite parties that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant at Salem, the premium for the policy Exhibit A7 issued y the 3^rd opposite party is paid at Salem and the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties are having their offices at Salem and hence this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try this complaint is acceptable, but for the presence of the 4^th opposite party, who has financed the loan for the purchase of the vehicle to the complainant on the hypothecation of the vehicle and it is the 4^th opposite party who has caused the vehicle to be insured with the 5^th opposite party, who has issued the insurance policy Exhibit A4 for the vehicle.  The cause of  action for this complaint is the issue  of the two insurance policies for the same vehicle purchased by the complainant.  Since the policy with the 5^th opposite party is caused to be obtained by the 4^th opposite party who is having his office at Nagapattinam, within the jurisdiction of this Forum the question of this Forum not having territorial jurisdiction to try this complaint could not be upheld.  Hence in view of the presence of the 4^th opposite party in this complaint this Forum has got every jurisdiction to try this complaint.

                        9. Point 2: Exhibit A2, the quotation given by the 1^st opposite party for the four wheeler vehicle purchased by the complainant specifys Rs.21207/- towards insurance premium and the total amount mentioned therein is Rs.731788/-.  Exhibit A3 is the receipt for payment of the advance of Rs.10000/- by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party.  Therefore deducting the said advance amount  balance due to be paid by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party for the purchase  of the vehicle is Rs.721788/-.  Out of the said amount, if the said insurance premium of Rs.21207/- is deducted the balance to be paid to the 1^st opposite  party is Rs.700581/- as would be  evidenced by the Exhibit A5.  The said draft is dated 04.12.2010 and the Exhibit A4, the insurance policy issued by the 5^th opposite party is dated 06.12.2010.  Therefore only after withholding the insurance amount of Rs.21207/- mentioned in Exhibit A2, the balance amount had been paid to the 1^st opposite party towards purchase of the said four wheeler vehicle. Exhibit A7, the insurance policy issued by the 3^rd opposite party is dated 24.12.2010.  Therefore it is very clear that the Exhibit A7, the insurance policy issued by the 3^rd opposite party is issued only subsequent to Exhibit A4, the insurance policy issued by the 5^th opposite party.  While the 1^st opposite party has received the draft exactly for Rs.700581/- excluding the insurance premium of Rs.21207 mentioned by him in his quotation Exhibit A2, there is no justification for him to obtain another insurance policy for the same vehicle from the 3^rd opposite party.  Therefore it is sheer deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.

10. The assertive contention of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties is that the legal notice is not at all received by them and there is no claim for refund of the insurance premium on the ground of re-insurance of the policy by the complainant before the expiry period contained in the policy issued by them.  The policy of the 3^rd opposite party has expired on 24.12.2011 at mid night as would be evidenced by the Exhibit A7.  Subsequent to the filing of the written arguments, the complainant has filed the postal receipts for the registration of the notices, the originals of Exhibit A6 to the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd , and 5^th opposite parties and the postal acknowledgement card received by the 3^rd opposite party along with a memo on 03.06.2014.  The postal receipts disclosed that the said notices where registered and dispatched on 02.08.2011 and it is received by the 3^rd opposite party on 09.08.2011.  Therefore the allegation of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties that they did not receive the legal notice sent by the complainant is proved  to be the deliberately false one.  Since the 3^rd opposite party has received the notice not less than 3 months prior to the expiry of the Exhibit A7, the insurance policy issued by him, it is not open to the 3^rd opposite party to contend that there is no claim for the refund of the insurance premium by the complainant on the ground of re-insurance of the vehicle.  Therefore the 3^rd opposite party who has received the legal notice, but has not chosen to send a reply has also committed deficiency of service in as much as he had not come forward to fairly refund the premium amount to the complainant. The non reply by the 3^rd opposite party to the notice sent by the complainant is also the deficiency of service on his part.

           11. Point 3: In the result the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties are directed to repay jointly or severally the sum of Rs.21924/-(Rupees twenty one thousand nine hundred and twenty four only), the insurance policy amount received by them for the 2^nd policy issued by the 3^rd opposite party for the vehicle sold by the 1^st opposite party and also the sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) towards cost of this litigation to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this complaint, failing which the said amount shall carry an interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order till its realization.

This order is dictated by me to the Steno-Typist, transcribed, typed  by him, corrected and pronounced by me on this  8^th   day of  July 2014.

 

 

    MEMBER I                                    MEMER II                                   PRESIDENT

List  of document   filed by the complainant

 

Ex.A1/Dt.  Nil                        : The Xerox copy of the Staff Identity Card of the complainant given

   by the A.D.J. Dharmambal Polytechnic College, Nagapattinam.

Ex.A2/Dt.  Nil                        : The Xerox copy of the quotation of the 4 wheeler vehicle

  (Bolero VLX B.S.III), issued by the 1^st opposite party with the

  authorized signature to the complainant.

Ex.A3/Dt.19.11.2010: Xerox copy of the receipt for the payment of Rs.10000/- towards

   advance issued by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant.

Ex.A4/Dt.06.12.2010: Xerox copy of the insurance policy of the vehicle in the name

              complainant issued by the 5^th opposite party.

Ex.A5/Dt.04.12.2010: Xerox copy of the Demand Draft No.660301245, Rs.700581/-

  issued by the 4^th opposite party, the financier of the complainant.

Ex.A6/Dt.  Nil                        :Xerox copy of the notice issued by the complainant to the opposite

   parties.

Ex.A7/Dt.24.12.2010: Xerox copy of the Certificate cum Policy Schedule issued by the

   3^rd opposite party.

 

 

 

 

MEMBER I                                    MEMER II                                       PRESIDENT

 

         

  

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM,

NAGAPATTINAM.

 

CC.No.62/ 2011

Order Dt:08.07.2014.