DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, LUCKNOW

CASE No.771 of 2007

       Sri Santosh Kumar Kaushik,

       S/o Late Sri Kartik Kaushik,

       R/o EWS 736, Ratnakar Khand,

       South City, Rai Bareli Road, Lucknow.

                                                                    ……Complainant

Versus

                 1. Director Sri Anil Dheeru Bhai Ambani,

                   Registered Office: Reliance General

                   Insurance Co. Ltd.,        Bal Chandra Heera              Since

                   Chandra Road, Batlar,                                     Deleted

                   State Mumbai-400038.      

                 2. Manager,

                    Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

                    Rohit House, Shahnajaf Road,

                    Hazratganj, Lucknow.

                 3. Sri Devendra Singh, Agent,

                    Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

                    Rohit House, Shahnajaf Road,

                    Hazratganj, Lucknow.                                                                                                                                  .......Opp. Parties

Present:-

Sri Vijai Varma, President.

Smt. Anju Awasthy, Member.

Sri Rajarshi Shukla, Member.

JUDGMENT

This complaint has been filed by the Complainant against the OPs for payment of compensation of Rs.1,50,000.00 and cost of the litigation.

          The case in brief of the Complainant is that he purchased an Indica Diesel Car from Tata Motors which was insured with OP No.3 for the period 28.04.2007 to 27.04.2008. The insurance was got done by the agent of OP No.3 and the Complainant had issued a cheque for Rs.9,483.00. The marriage ceremony of the nephew was to be solemnised on 21.04.2007 and for attending the marriage ceremony the

-2-

Complainant had gone there with this family members and neighbours and was returning on 26.05.2007 from the marriage to Lucknow and at about 4.30 pm, because of bursting of the tyre of the front wheel the vehicle lost its balance and fell into the gorge. The vehicle was damaged and many people got injured. The vehicle was taken to mechanic through a tractor after covering the distance of 50 kms for which he was paid Rs.2,000.00 and the mechanic also took Rs.2,000.00 so that the vehicle could be drivable. The vehicle was taken to the service station of Tata Motors even though the Complainant asked officers of the insurance Co. to get the vehicle repaired but they told that the OP No.3 had not deposited any documents with the Company, therefore it is not their responsibility to get the vehicle repaired. Meanwhile, the agent asked for returning the cover note but the Complainant refused. The vehicle of the Complainant remained in garage for about 5 months and he had to undergo a lot of difficulties & incurred financial loss. Thereafter the Complainant got the vehicle repaired by spending Rs.90,000.00 and also spent Rs.5,000.00 for taking the vehicle to the garage, hence this complaint for reimbursement and compensation.

          The OPs have filed the WS wherein it is mainly submitted that it is not disputed that the Complainant case is related to issuance of cover note and premium paid by cheque No.850679 dated 28.04.2007 but the cheque amount was not realized in the account of the company, hence basic requirement of the 64-VB not complied regarding the cover note in question, therefore no policy was issued against cover note No.2355655 by the insurance company. No intimation given by the Complainant to the insurance company. There is some difference between the agent and Complainant on the point of issuing cover note and amount paid as a result of that compliance of the 64-VB was not fulfilled regarding the cover note in question, hence without confirmation of the 64-VB

-3-

insurance cover note becomes void. There is no policy issued by the insurance company against cover note in question, hence for the company it is not possible to entertain any claim against cover note number. Due to this reason the cover note/policy automatically cancelled ‘AB-INITIO’. There is no relation between Complainant and Insurance Company because against cover note No.2355655 no policy was issued because 64-VB of the insurance act not complied. There is no consumer dispute and the complaint is not maintainable against answering OPs because at the time of alleged accident the policy was not in the existence. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, hence the complaint case is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.

          The Complainant has filed his reply to the WS of OPs.

          The Complainant has filed his affidavit and paper No.7 to 23 with the complaint. The Complainant has also filed affidavits of Sri Mangal Ram, Sri Prabhu Ram Sahu, Sri Subodh Shukla and Sri Shiv Prasad Kashyap. The Complainant has filed his written arguments.

          Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.

          Now, it is to be seen as to whether the OP No.3 as agent of OP No.2 insured the vehicle of the Complainant or not and whether the OP No.2 has rightly rejected the claim of the Complainant and has not committed any deficiency in service or not and consequences there of.

          The contention of the Complainant is that OP No.3 had issued a policy for insurance of the vehicle of the Complainant which was effective from 28.04.2007 to 27.04.2008 and that the OP No.3 was the agent of OP No.2 his code No. being 2355655. He has contended that for the insurance of the vehicle he had paid Rs.9,483.00 through cheque No.850679.00. When his vehicle met with an accident then he met the OPs for reimbursement of the expenditure incurred on

-4-

the repairs of the vehicle but the officers of the insurance Co. told that the OP No.3 had not submitted any documents relating to the insurance policy and therefore they are not liable to get the repairs done or reimburse. The WS has been filed from the side of the OPs but it appears to be filed by the Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. only i.e. OP No.2. The OP No.3 individually has not filed any WS or reply and the stand of OP No.2 is that there was some difference between the agent and the Complainant on the point of issuance of cover note and the amount paid and consequently compliance of 64-VB insurance cover note was not fulfilled and hence the cover note becomes void. But interestingly the OP No.2 has nowhere challenged the status of OP No.3 as the agent of OP No.2. This takes us to the conclusion that OP No.3 was empowered to issue cover note of the vehicle insured on behalf of OP No.2. Now in that backdrop the Complainant issued a cheque No.850679 dated 28.04.2007 for Rs.9,483.00 for the insurance of his vehicle and OP No.3 issued the cover note. The copy of cover note shows that it was issued by Sri Devendra Singh OP No.3 by taking a cheque of Rs.9,483.00 and the cover note was issued on 28.04.2007 and hence the vehicle was insured w.e.f. 28.04.2007 till mid night of 27.04.2008. Now, whether the cheque in question was deposited alongwith papers by OP No.3 with OP No.2 or not is none of the concern of the Complainant. The Complainant did everything what was in his hands for insurance of the vehicle and it is up to the agent OP No.3 of OP No.2 to have taken follow up action after issuing the cover note. The factum of issuance of the cover note is not challenged by the OPs. Now, if the OP No.3 does not submit the cheque and the papers to the OP No.2 then it is the matter between the OP No.2 and 3 but for that the OP No.3 cannot escape from the responsibility of fulfilling the promises made under the cover note of the OP No.2. It is not the case of the OPs that the OP No.2 did not

-5-

give any authority to OP No.3 to issue the cover note, therefore in the present case the OP No.2 cannot escape the responsibility of fulfilling the promises. It is obvious that the OP No.2 has wrongly repudiated the claim of the Complainant and therefore they have committed unfair trade practice as also deficiency in service, therefore the Complainant is entitled to get the reimbursement of the amount spent on the vehicle.

          Now, the question arises as to how much the amount the Complainant is entitled to get as reimbursement. The Complainant has claimed Rs.90,000.00 as the amount spent on repairs and Rs.5,000.00 as the amount spent for taking the vehicle to garage but he has only filed receipt of Rs.45,955.00 paid by him, therefore he is entitled to the reimbursement of  only the amount of Rs.45,955.00 with interest. As the Complainant has also been harassed in this regard, hence he is entitled to compensation as well as cost of the litigation.

ORDER

          The complaint is partly allowed. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to reimburse the amount of Rs.45,955.00 (Rupees Forty Five Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Five Only) with 9% interest from the date of filing of the case till the final payment is made to the complainant.

The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.10,000.00 (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation and Rs.5,000.00 (Rupees Five Thousand only) as cost of the litigation. The compliance of the order is to be made within a month.

 (Rajarshi Shukla)          (Anju Awasthy)      (Vijai Varma)

        Member                         Member                      President

Dated:         May, 2015