FINAL ORDER/JUDGMENT

Presented by:

Minakshi Chakraborty,  Presiding Member.

 Brief facts of the case:This case has been filed U/s. 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant stating that the complainant insured his vehicle as commercial vehicle liability only policy from The New India assurance Company Ltd. on 10.11.2017 and paid Rs. 34,290/- towards premium for commercial vehicle liability only policy through its agent under its branch office at Serampore and the complainant purchased a vehicle insurance policy under the commercial vehicle liability only policy from the opposite party no. 1 which covered all the expenses of the Lorry vehicle no. WB 15A 0103 as commercial vehicle liability vide policy no. 51250131170200005071 and the said policy issued on 10.11.2017 and the policy period of insurance 10.11.2017 to 9.11.2017 and it provided vehicle commercial liability only policy cover as liability basis TP Cover. LL to paid driver conductor cleaner employed for the vehicle policy certificate from the side of the complainant. After fulfill all formalities the opposite party no. 1 has been issued the 1^st year policy and so the complainant has facing financial stringency and for that reason the complainant went to the financer to resolve to purchase of the vehicle and Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited passed a vehicle loan of Rs. 1,80,000/- in the name of the complainant and Shiram finance has issued again vehicle insurance in the same vehicle (truck) and the said insurance certificate has been issued by Shriram Transport Finance Company Limiteddt. 28.12.2017 of Rs. 39,085.00/- being vehicle policy no. 10003/31/18/519264 issuing Rajasthan office.

            After passing some days the complainant submitted an application before the Sr. Br. Manager, New India General Assurance Co. Ltd. and explained in details facts and acknowledge about double insurance policy has been made unfortunately and for that reason the 1^stinsurance policy will be cancelled by the side of the New India General Assurance Co. Ltd. and give refund of Rs. 34,290/- to the complainant. After that the complainant has filed an application through online in Mumbai Head office (HO) New India General Assurance Co. Ltd. and they are resolve the matter and gave a mail that online policy cancelled and refund the amount and they are advice to meet to the concerned branch manager and request them to cancel the liability only policy and provide the refund of policy money.

            In the meantime the insurance agent send a mail on behalf of the complainant to the Sr. Br. Manager New India General Assurance Co. Ltd. Serampore Branch on the official site that under Sec. GR24,B of the Insurance Rule in case of double policy has been happened in any vehicle that time this vehicle insurance attacked in double insurance and first who’s insurance company has been made first insurance that first insurance will be stand cancelled and give refund money to the insured policy holder. But there were no fruitful result.

            Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite party no. 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 34,290/- as cost and to pay a sum of Rs. 15,710/- for mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as litigation cost.

Defense Case:-The opposite parties contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against them and stated that the earlier policy issued on 10.11.2017 by the New India General Assurance Co. Ltd. in connection with the vehicle vide no. WB-15A-0103 was an Act Policy and subsequently due to financial stringency the complainant sold out the said vehicle to one Mr. Saiyad Ebrahim who applied for loan to Shrivam Transport Finance Co. Ltd. on truck which was registered in the name of the said complainant and the said fact of transfer was not intimated to the opposite party, New India General Assurance Co. Ltd. being issuer of the said vehicle at the material time as per norms. Later on the said financer purchased a comprehensive Insurance Policy in the name of the complainant from Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. and thereafter the complainant made an application to the opposite party, New India General Assurance Co. Ltd. to cancel the said earlier policy issued by the opposite party, New India General Assurance Co. Ltd. with a prayer to refund the premium amount. On scrutiny of the said petition made by insured to cancel the earlier policy and the documents submitted therein it is observed that the policy issued by the New India General Assurance Co. Ltd. was an act Policy where the subsequent policy issued by Shriram General Insurance Company was a comprehensive Policy and the said fact of transfer was not intimated to the office of opposite party, New India General Assurance Co. Ltd. as per norms. Even prior intimation due to requirement of the said financial institutional was not given to the office of the opposite party, New India General Assurance Co. Ltd. as per Rule GR 25 B of IMT. Further as per website net copy it is revealed that an accident claim for the said vehicle was paid by the said later Insurer (Shriram General Insurance Company) under the aforesaid 2^nd policy when the two policies were in force. So, any cancellation of policy as prayed for is not permitted by the said GR 25B. hence due to non compliance of requirements and formalities stated herein above and as per Rule GR 25B (IMT) the office of this opposite party, New India General Assurance Co. Ltd. had no other alternative but to repudiate the said claim made by the complainant. So, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, New India General Assurance Co. Ltd. Hence the said case is liable to be dismissed.

Evidence on record

The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite parties.

            The O.P.Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have filed a joint evidence on affidavit which reiterates  the averments of the written version.

Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the parties

Complainant and opposite parties have filed separate written notes of argument. As per BNA the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of both sides shall have to be taken into consideration for disposal of the instant proceeding.

            Heard argument of both sides at length. In course of argument ld. Lawyers of both sides have given emphasis on evidence and documents produced by the parties.

From the discussion hereinabove, we find the following issues/points for consideration.

Issues/points for consideration

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer?
2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief?

DECISION WITH REASONS

Issue no.1:

          In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.The point is thus answered in the affirmative.  

Issue no.2:

                        Both the complainants and the opposite parties are residents/having their office addresses within the district of Hooghly and the claims do not exceed the pecuniary limit of this commission. This point is thus disposed of accordingly.

Issue nos. 3 & 4:

Both the issues are taken up simultaneously for the sake of convenience.

Perused the BNA of both sides and the evidence on record.

The case of the complainant is that after purchasing a vehicle being theLorry bearing no. WB 15A 0103, he purchased a vehicle insurance policy under the commercial vehicle liability onlywith policy cover as liability basis TP Cover from the opposite party no. 1 which covered all the expenses of the Lorry vehicle no. WB 15A 0103 as commercial vehicle liability vide policy no. 51250131170200005071 and the said policy issued on 10.11.2017 against payment of Rs. 34,290/- towards premium through its agent under its branch office at Serampore, Hooghly and the policy period of insurance was 10.11.2017 to 9.11.2018 and thus after fulfilling all formalities the opposite party no. 1 issued the 1year policy. It is his further case that after sometime he faced financial paucity for which he had approached to one Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited to recover from his financial stringency with an appeal for a loan against his said vehicle and Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited passed a vehicle loan of Rs. 1,80,000/- in the name of the complainant and Shiram finance has issued again vehicle insurance in the same vehicle (truck) and the said insurance certificate has been issued by Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited on 28.12.2017 of Rs. 39,085.00/- being vehicle policy no. 10003/31/18/519264 having issuing office at Rajasthan.

            After few days the complainant made an application before the Sr. Br. Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. detailing the facts and acknowledgement about double insurance policy made unfortunately and for that reason he prayed for cancellation of the 1^st insurance policy and for refund of Rs. 34,290/- to the complainant. After that he also made application through online in Mumbai Head office (HO), New India General Assurance Co. Ltd. and on receiving mail he found that he was advised to meet to the concerned branch manager and to request them to cancel the liability only policy and for refund of policy money. It is the specific case of the complainant that it is on the official site of OP1 that under Sec. ….GR24,B of the Insurance Rule in case of double policy has been happened in any vehicle that time this vehicle insurance attacked in double insurance and first who’s insurance company has been made first insurance that first insurance will be stand cancelled and give refund money to the insured policy holder. But there were no fruitful result.

            Whereas the case of OPs is that the complainant sold out his said insured vehicle bearing no. WB 15A 0103 to Saiyad Ebrahim who took loan of Rs. 1,80,000/- from Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited from which finance Co. subsequently another policy was purchased which was a comprehensive policy whereas the policy of OP1 was an act policy. It is the specific case of OPs that both the policies are different and not at all identical and further that complainant did it without notice of the OP1 which amountsto violation of Rule GR 25B of the IMT.

Now,on minutely perusal of the documents submitted by bothsides on record and comparing the same with the evidence, the commission finds that both the  Section GR24(B) and GR 25B of the IMT are to be read conjointly first before arriving at the finality of the decision.

Sections GR24(B) and GR 25B of the IMT run as follows:

of Insurance and Double Insurance

B. “GR.24. Cancellation Double Insurance

When two policies are in existence on the same vehicle with identical cover, one of the policies may be cancelled. Where one of the policies commences at a date later than the other policy, the policy commencing later is to be cancelled by the insurer concerned.

 If a vehicle is insured at any time with two different offices of the same insurer, 100% refund of premium of one policy may be allowed by canceling the later of the two policies. However, if the two policies are issued by two different insurers, the policy commencing later is to be cancelled by the insurer concerned and pro-rata refund of premium thereon is to be allowed.

 If however, due to requirements of Banks/Financial Institutions, intimated to the insurer in writing, the earlier dated policy is required to be cancelled, then refund of premium is to be allowed after retaining premium at short period scale for the period the policy was in force prior to cancellation.

In all such eventualities, the minimum premium as specified in the tariff is to be retained.

 In either case, no refund of premium can be allowed for such cancellation if any claim has arisen on either of the policies during the period when both the policies were in operation, but prior to cancellation of one of the policies.

GR.25. Cancellation and issuance of fresh Certificate of Insurance

Following any changes in the policy during its currency, affecting the information shown on the Certificate of Insurance, the Certificate of Insurance is required to be returned to the Insurer for cancellation and a fresh Certificate incorporating the changes is to be issued.

Information regarding change of number of Engine and/ or Chassis of the vehicle, is required to be intimated to the insurer immediately for effecting necessary changes in the policy, provided such changes are duly endorsed on the Registration Certificate. The Certificate of Insurance is also required to be returned immediately for issuance of fresh Certificate of Insurance incorporating the changes.

 Remittance of Rs. 50/- is required to be made to the insurer for each issuance of fresh Certificate of Insurance.”

In the instant case the commission is failed to understand about the fact that what prompted the complainant to insure his vehicle for the second time with another insurance company and that also with a higher premium rate when he was suffering from financial stringencies. More so, in this case if we go through section B. “GR.24. which clearly says about Cancellation in case ofDouble Insurance ,we may find that when two policies are in existence on the same vehicle with identical cover, one of the policies may be cancelled. Where one of the policies commences at a date later than the other policy, the policy commencing later is to be cancelled by the insurer concerned.

 If a vehicle is insured at any time with two different offices of the same insurer, 100% refund of premium of one policy may be allowed by canceling the later of the two policies. However, if the two policies are issued by two different insurers, the policy commencing later is to be cancelled by the insurer concerned and pro-rata refund of premium thereon is to be allowed.

 If however, due to requirements of Banks/Financial Institutions, intimated to the insurer in writing, the earlier dated policy is required to be cancelled, then refund of premium is to be allowed after retaining premium at short period scale for the period the policy was in force prior to cancellation.

Accordingly, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief in the instant case.

Both the issues are thus disposed of.

Hence,

ordered

that the complaint case no. 40 of 2019 be and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in