Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/301/2015

Kulwant Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd & others - Opp.Party(s)

Jatinder Kumar Kamboj

13 Jan 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	301 of 2015
Date of Institution	12.11.2015
Date of Decision	13.01.2016

Kulwant Kaur w/o Sh.Zora Singh, House No.1014, Sector 36-C, Chandigarh

                                        …..Appellant/Complainant.

                                Versus

1.        Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited, through its Managing Director, Peninsula Corporate Park, Piramal Tower, 15th Floor, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Off Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013.

 

2.        AXIS Bank Limited, SCO 139-142, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

                                …..Respondents/Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:    JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

 

Sh.Jatinder Kumar Kamboj, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh.Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Service of respondent No.2 already dispensed with vide order dated 10.12.2015.  

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.08.2015, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (in short the Forum), vide which, it allowed Consumer Complaint No.858 of 2014 qua Opposite Party No.1/respondent No.1 only and dismissed the complaint qua Opposite Party No.2/respondent No.2 filed by the complainant (now appellant), with the following directions :-

“13.     In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed, as under:-

(i)  To make payment of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing mental and physical harassment.

(ii) To make payment of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses.

14.      This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party No.1 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy; thereafter, it shall pay the amount at Sr. No.(i) above with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, till realization, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para (ii) above. “ 

 2.             The facts, in brief, are that the complainant’s car i.e. Honda City bearing registration No.PB70 0002, was got insured with Opposite Party No.1 vide Policy/cover note No.0100780971 valid for the period from 20.05.2013 to 19.05.2014. The complainant wanted to get the insurance Policy renewed for the next year i.e. 2014 to 2015 and for the said purpose, he purchased the insurance Policy through AXIS Bank (Opposite Party No.2) and issued a cheque bearing No.249006 for an amount of Rs.17,791/-, which was debited from her Bank Account No.913010020353964 on 28.05.2014 (Annexure C-2). The other requisite formalities were also performed by the complainant at the time of purchase of the Policy. It was stated that after purchase of the Policy for the period 2014-15, the complainant visited the Opposite Parties a number of times with the request to hand over a copy of the Policy, but to no avail. It was further stated that the complainant is working as a Director in Anter Impex Pvt. Ltd. and Anter Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and she was using the abovesaid vehicle for commuting to her office and in the absence of the aforesaid Policy, she could not use the vehicle, in question, and in routine had to hire the cab for the said purpose. It was averred that since the requisite service was not provided by the Opposite Parties, as such, the complainant had to approach the other service provider i.e. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and the Policy for the vehicle, in question, was got issued on 11.12.2014 by paying the penalty charges, as there was enough gap between the expired Policy and the new Policy. Therefore, the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, as also indulged into unfair trade practice.  When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

3.             In its written statement, Opposite Party No.1, stated that  the replying Opposite Party had issued the Policy on 11.12.2014 to the complainant (Exhibit ‘A’) and the same was received by her on 16.12.2014 (Exhibit ‘B’). It was further stated that the complainant accepted the Policy unconditionally and, therefore, nothing survives in the complaint. It was further stated that the replying Opposite Party was neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.             In its written statement, Opposite Party No.2, stated that the complainant approached it and deposited the premium amount of Rs.17,791/- on 28.05.2014 and the said amount was sent to Opposite Party No.1 on the same day. It was further stated that the replying Opposite Party only acted as a collecting agent for the premium of Policy. The actual Policy was to be issued by Opposite Party No.1. It was further stated that the replying Opposite Party was neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

5.             The complainant, filed separate replications to the written statements, filed by both the Opposite Parties, wherein, she reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and refuted those, contained in the written versions of both the Opposite Parties.   

6.             The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

7.             After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum, allowed the complaint qua Opposite Party No.1 only, as stated above. 

8.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

9.             We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, Counsel for respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

10.           The Counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that while passing the impugned order, the Forum failed to award requisite compensation and return of the principal amount to the complainant. He prayed for allowing the appeal.

11.           The Counsel for respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 submitted that the Policy was issued to the complainant on 11.12.2014 and it was unconditionally acceptable to her. So, there was no deficiency, in service, on its part.

12.           After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the submissions, raised by the Counsel for the appellant/complainant, Counsel for respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be partly allowed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter.

13.           The core question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the appellant is entitled for the refund of the premium, paid by her to the Insurance Company. Admittedly, the complainant got her vehicle insured with Opposite Party No.1 vide cover note No.0100780971 for the period from 20.05.2013 to 19.05.2014. Thereafter, the complainant wanted to get the Policy renewed for the next year i.e. 2014 to 2015. She, therefore, purchased the Policy by paying premium through cheque for an amount of Rs.17,791/-, which is clearly stipulated from the bank statement (Annexure C-2). The allegation of the complainant is that after payment of premium, the Policy was not issued to her, despite repeated requests. As such, the complainant approached the other service provider i.e. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the Policy for the vehicle, in question, was got issued on 11.12.2014 by paying the penalty charges, as there was enough gap between the expired Policy and the new Policy. According to respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1, the Policy, in question, was issued on 11.12.2014 and it was unconditionally accepted by the complainant. On the other hand, according to Opposite Party No.2 before the Forum, it acted as a collecting agent for the premium of Policy, in question and sent the said premium amount of Rs.17,791/- to Opposite Party No.1 on 28.05.2014. Clearly, Annexure R-2 is email dated 10.12.2014 (wrongly written as 12.10.2014) sent by Opposite Party No.2 to Opposite Party No.1, wherein, it was informed that the complainant had not received the Policy  pack, which was supposed to be received by her in the month of May, 2014. It was further informed that the complainant was regularly visiting the branch for refund of premium but neither the Policy nor refund had been initiated. Lastly, Opposite Party No.2 sought information from Opposite Party No.1 as regards how much time does it takes for issuance of Policy. Further, Annexure R-4 is email dated 28.11.2014 written by Opposite Party No.1, stated that the case was being taken on priority by the Head Office. It is clear from email (Annexure R-3) that Opposite Party No.2 informed Opposite Party No.1 that till date, the customer had neither received any cover note or Policy pack instead a letter dated 30.10.2014 was received from Opposite Party No.1’s office mentioning that the Policy was being cancelled and refund of entire premium collected shall be made to the customer. It was further stated in this email that neither the Policy was issued nor refund was received and despite repeatedly asking them to contact at least the customer and explain to her, none of the Tata officials had spoken to the customer till now. From perusal of afore-mentioned emails, it is borne out that despite repeated requests for refund of the premium amount, Opposite Party No.1 did not refund the same, which fact was duly established from the email (Annexure R-3). Even also, a copy of letter dated 30.10.2014 reference whereof is made in email (Annexure R-3), vide which, the Policy was being cancelled and refund of entire premium was to be made to the customer, has not been placed on record. The Forum gravely erred in not taking note of this aspect of the matter regarding refund of the premium amount. By not refunding the premium amount, deficiency in rendering service and unfair trade practice is attributable to Opposite Party No.1. As such, the complainant is entitled for the refund of premium amount alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of payment of premium. To this extent, the order of the Forum needs modification.

14.           Even the complainant has suffered a lot at the hands of Opposite Party No.1, so, we are of the view that the compensation awarded by the Forum is on the lower side and the same needs to be enhanced.  

15.           In view of the above, the appeal is partly accepted. The order, under challenge, is modified as under :-

1.     Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 is directed to refund the premium amount of Rs.17,791/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of payment thereof, within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
2.     Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 is directed to make payment of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing mental and physical harassment, instead of Rs.15,000/- (awarded by the Forum), within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
3.     Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses instead of Rs.10,000/- (awarded by the Forum).
4.     In case the order is not complied with, within the aforesaid stipulated period then the amount mentioned at Clause No.(i) shall be payable alongwith interest @12% p.a. from the date of default, till actual payment, whereas, at Clause No.(ii) above shall be payable alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint, till actual payment, besides payment of litigation expenses.

16.           Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

17.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.                                         

January 13^th, 2016.                                                                                        Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER 

 

Sd/-

                                           (PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER

 

 

rb