JUDGEMENT<br /> By Sri. Pampapathi, President:-<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant Smt. Parvathamma against Opposites 1 & 2 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct opposites to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as a compensation with interest 18% p.a. and cost of Rs. 30,000/- towards cost.<br /> <br /> 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, her husband late Mahadevappa purchased TVS XL HD Model Moped from opposite No-1 authorized dealer of TVS Motor Company Ltd., on 04-07-09 at the time of issuing delivery note by opposite No-1 it collected the Insurance Premium amount of Rs. 694/- of the vehicle including personal accident coverage of the owner/ driver. Thereafter on 10-07-09 the said vehicle met with an accident, while her husband was driving it. He sustained severe injuries and died on 14-07-09. Police complaint was filed, P.M. was conducted, vehicle was inspected by IMV Inspector. Opposite No-1 collected premium amount of Rs. 694/- from her husband with an undertaking to pay the same to opposite No-2 on the same date. After the death of her husband, it was intimated to opposite Nos-1 & 2. Both of them have shown their negligence in settling her claim. After approaching the office of opposite No-2, it is noticed that coverage of insurance of the said vehicle commenced only from 14-07-09 and not fro 04-07-09. Opposite No-1’s duty is to make the payment of the premium amount of Rs. 694/- to opposite No-2 as he is the authorized agent of opposite No-2 and as undertaken at the time of delivery of the vehicle, as such both opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services, accordingly she filed this complaint and prayed for to grant reliefs as prayed in it. <br /> <br /> 3. Opposite No-1 appeared in this case through his Advocate and contended that, it collected the price of the vehicle only on 04-07-09, the delivery of the vehicle was given to him on 06-07-09, as 5th of that month was Sunday. On 06-09-09 temporary registration of the vehicle was obtained and handed over to the husband of complainant. It not collected any premium amount of the vehicle Insurance from him. Other contentions taken by the complainant have been denied and prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds.<br /> <br /> 4. Opposite No-2 Insurance Company contended that, as on the date of death of Mahadevappa who is the husband of the present complainant, his vehicle was not covered with any kind of Insurance as claimed by the complainant. Hence the claim of the complainant not considered and more over the liability of insurance company under personal accident coverage is not applicable as he was not holding valid licence as on the date of accident, he was driving the vehicle in intoxicated conditions and thereby there is no deficiency in its service, accordingly it prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds.<br /> <br /> 5. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the opposite No-1 authorized dealer of TVS Motor Company Ltd., and being the agent of opposite No-2 collected the Insurance premium amount of Rs. 694/- on 04-07-09 by covering personal accident along with damage to the vehicle, but it not transferred the insurance premium to opposite No-2 and thereby the claim of complainant regarding the death of her husband late Mahadevappa in accident on 10-07-09 was not settled by either opposite No-1 or opposite No-2, they shown their negligence in settling her claim and thereby both opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services towards her? <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in her complaint.?<br /> <br /> 3. What order?<br /> <br /> 6. Our findings on the above points are as under:-<br /> <br /> (1) In Negative.<br /> <br /> (2) In Negative.<br /> <br /> (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed <br /> to pass the final order for the following :<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> POINT NO.1 & 2:-<br /> <br /> 7. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. Documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-9 are marked. Affidavit-evidence of opposite No-1 was filed, who is noted as RW-1. Documents Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2 are marked. Affidavit-evidence of opposite No-2 was filed, who is noted as RW-2. Documents Ex.R-3 was marked.<br /> <br /> 8. On perusal of the facts pleaded in Para- 1 of the complaint are not required detail appreciation, as it is not in dispute regarding the purchase of TVS XL under delivery notice 282 dt. 04-07-09 from opposite No-1.<br /> <br /> 9. Delivery Note Ex.P-1 says regarding the purchase of said vehicle by deceased Mahadevappa on 04-07-09. This document is not disclosing anything regarding the payment of Insurance Premium of Rs. 694/- to opposite No-1 as contended by the complainant, other documents namely Ex.P-3 Insurance Cover Note and Ex.P-4 Original Insurance Policy are also not disclosing any of the fact regarding the receipt of Insurance Premium of the said vehicle by opposite No-2 on 04-07-09 either from Mahadevappa or from opposite No-1 Balaji Motors. <br /> <br /> 10. Ex.P-1 delivery note of the vehicle is dt. 04-07-09, the Insurance Cover Note Ex.P-3 shows the coverage of insurance of the said vehicle for a period of one year commencing from 14-07-09 and expiring on 13-07-10, Ex.P-4 Policy issued by opposite No-2 along with its schedule clearly shows the coverage of Insurance of the vehicle for a period of one year starting from 10.00 A.M. from 14-07-09 to Mid night 13-07-10 and not commending from 04-07-09. Admittedly the accident took place on 10-07-09 at 10.00 A.M. that means to say that, as on the date of accident i.e, on 10-07-09 at 10.00 A.M. there was no Insurance coverage of the said vehicle of any kind by opposite No-2 Insurance Company either by Insurance Cover Note Ex.P-3 or by Insurance Policy at Ex.P-4. No doubt the husband of complainant might have died on 14-07-09 but the date of death of him is not a matter to consider the Insurance coverage because the death is incidental to the accident dt. 10-07-09 and as on 10-07-09 opposite No-2 was not expected to perform any kind of services towards complainant or her husband Mahadevappa as there was no relationship of customer and service provider in between Mahadevappa and opposite No-2, as such we are not in a position to accept the submissions made by the learned advocate for complainant regarding the tampering of delivery note book etc., the delivery note book might have got binded by Insurance Company without maintaining any order or sequence of issuance of delivery note on date wise. <br /> <br /> 11. Now coming to the second contention of the complainant is that, opposite No-1 collected premium amount of Rs. 644/- of the said vehicle on 14-07-09 itself, by promising to get the vehicle insured along with personal accident coverage from opposite No-2. This submission is not supported by any kind of documentary evidences by the complainant. Even if, we agree with the submissions made by the learned advocate for complainant that, opposite No-1 dealer of TVS Motor Moped is an agent of opposite No-2 and collected premium by him for coverage of vehicle Insurance is amounting to acceptance of insurance premium by opposite No-2 and whether it is binding on opposite No-2 Insurance Company.<br /> <br /> 12. The learned advocate for opposite No-1 totally denied regarding the assurance given to the complainant to get it insured and taking Insurance premium amount of Rs. 694/- from him. In the said circumstances, it is the duty of the complainant to establish the fact that, he paid Insurance premium amount of Rs. 694/- in the hands of opposite No-1.<br /> <br /> 13. Apart from it, the complainant has to establish the fact that, opposite No-1 is an agent of opposite No-2 was an authorized person to accept the premium on behalf of opposite No-2. As per settled law by the Hon’ble National Commission and also by the Hon’ble State Commission in a rulings reported in:<br /> 1. 2009 (II) CPR 374 (NC) Life Insurance Corporation of India V/s. Giridharlal P.V. Keshavani and others and (2) 2009 (IV) CPR 47 Karnataka State Commission J. Madhavi (Doctor) V/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India their lordships held as, Insurance agents are not authorized to collect any money nor accept any risk on behalf of LIC, they can collect so, only if, expressly authorized to do so.<br /> <br /> 14. In another ruling reported in 8 (2009) III 329 Goolamdevi Meena V/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India, the Hon’ble Commission held as LIC agent mis appropriated the premium amount and thus policy was not issued LIC could not be made liable where insured died and only agent could be held liable for loss.<br /> <br /> 15. Keeping in view of the principles of the rulings referred above, we are of the view that, opposite No-1 is nothing to do any kind of service complainant on the basis of the allegations made against it. There was no documentary evidences to show that, opposite No-1 collected premium of Rs. 694/- with an assurance to get the vehicle insured with opposite No-2, If really complainant aggrieved against opposite No-1, then she is entitled to take legal action under Civil or Criminal Law but not before the Consumer Forum, accordingly the submissions made by the learned advocate for complainant in this regard is also not accepted. In view of the facts ad circumstances stated above and in view of the documentary evidences referred by us, we are of the view that, complainant not proved negligence and deficiency in service either by opposite No-1 or by opposite No-2, accordingly we answered Point No-1 in Negative.<br /> <br /> 16. In view of our finding on Point No- 1, the complainant is not entitled for any one of the relief’s as prayed in her complaint.<br /> <br /> POINT NO.3:-<br /> <br /> 17. In view of our findings on Point No- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> This complaint filed by the complainant against opposite Nos. 1 & 2 is dismissed. <br /> <br /> Intimate the parties accordingly. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 25-10-10)<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. Pampapathi,<br /> President,<br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. Gururaj, Member,<br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/- <br /> Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, <br /> Member. <br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />