F I N A L O R D E R
This is a case U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for an award directing the O.Ps. to refund the insurance premium of Rs.9,659/- (Rs.12,274/- (-) Rs.2,251.13/- (-) Rs.463.86) collected on 20.2.2013, to refund the insurance premium of Rs.12,300/- collected on 1.3.2013, to pay extra fuel cost of Rs.52,000/- incurred by the complainant, to pay estimated cost of Rs.25,000/- for repairing the damages caused by RTO on 12.7.2013, to pay cost of Rs.50,000/- for mental pain and agony and to pay litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
The complainant’s case in short is that the complainant with an intention to renew the motor insurance policy of his Maruti Swift Dzire VDi Car having registration No. WB 40 S9771 for the period from 21.2.2013 to 20.2.2014 with the O.P. issued a bankers cheque of Rs.12,274/- bearing No.305288 dated 19.2.2013 drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd. The O.P. received the said cheque by issuing cover note number 12017202 and a money receipt being No.04-02-
(2)
00005334 dated 21.2.2013 and the O.P. on receiving the said cheque issued a policy being No.015175116201 for the period starting from 21.2.2013 and ending with 20.2.2014. The O.P. deposited the said cheque in the bank for enchashment in two occasions on 23.2.2013 and 6.3.2013 but the cheque was not honoured by the bank with the reason “INST MUTILATED REQUIRES BANK GUARANTY”. Being intimated the complainant enquired the matter and the HDFC Bank by a letter dated 18.3.2013 intimated the complainant that the bankers cheque as mentioned above was placed before the bank for clearing on 23.2.2013 and then on 6.3.2013 but in both the occassions the cheque was returned as the same was in mutilated condition and subsequently the O.P. again presented said cheque for clearing on 13.3.2013 through HSBC and the same was cleared from Mumbai on 13.3.2013 since HSBC had affixed their confirmation with reason to mutilation. But the O.P. by issuing letter dated 18.3.2013 intimated the complainant that the cheque as mentioned above was dishonoured and accordingly the policy being No.015175116201 was cancelled and the O.P. asked the complainant to return back the cover note, insurance certificate and the policy and also asked the complainant to make a fresh remittance of premium in cash. The complainant to avoid complications and to save the plying of his vehicle, deposited cash Rs.12,300/- for renewal of the policy and the O.P. received the said amount by issuing money receipt No.04-02-00005537 dated 1.3.2013 and a cover note being No.12017205 and also issued a policy for the period from 1.3.2013 to 28.2.2014. From the fact as mentioned above, for almost the same period the O.P. collected more than double premium from the complainant. The complainant has further stated that the O.P. subsequently issued another two policies which are Policy No.015175116202 for the period from 21.2.2013 to 20.2.2014 deducting Rs.10,123/- as premium from the amount which was received by clearing the cheque as mentioned, policy No.010073526201 for the period from 1.3.2013 to 28.2.2014 deducting Rs.11,836/- from the amount of Rs.12,300/- deposited by the complainant. Inspite of repeated written requests, the O.P. did not clarify the matter before the complainant as to why double premium was received by it for the almost same period and which policy out of above four policies was in force. The O.P. after issuing the policy No. 015175116202, deducted Rs.10,123/- as premium, from the amount which was received by encashing cheque for Rs.12,274/- and returned back the balance amount of Rs.2,151/- to the complainant. The O.P. also after issuing the policy No.010073526201 for the period from 1.3.2013 to 28.2.2014 deducted Rs.11,836/- as premium from the amount of Rs.12,300/- deposited by the complainant and returned Rs. 394/- + Rs.70/- = total Rs.464/- as excess amount to the
(3)
complainant. So, it is clear that the O.P. has encashed the bankers cheque dated 19.2.2013 and received Rs.12,274/- and subsequently returned Rs.2,151/- to the complainant and it has consumed Rs.10,123/- as premium of the policy No.015175116202 for the period from 21.2.2013 to 20.2.2014. The O.P. also has consumed Rs.11,836/- illegally as premium for the policy No.010073526201 for the period from 1.3.2013 to 28.2.2014. The further case of the complainant is that the O.P. sent a copy of its letter dated 18.3.2013 to the RTO, Burdwan, Durgapur to intimate that the policy No.015175116201 was cancelled. After receiving said copy of the letter, the RTO Officials on 12.7.2013 when the complainant was moving towards Kolkata for urgent need, intercepted the car and took attempt to seize the car, complainant resisted them by showing valid papers but the RTO team damaged the complainant’s car, cracked the front windshield glass and damage the body panels at several places. The complainant took attempt to intimate the incident by a letter to the O.Ps. but the same was returned with the postal remark ‘refused’. Inspite of repeated demand and request the O.P. did not give proper service to the complainant and for the deficiency in service as well as negligence on the part of the O.P. the complainant was harassed and suffered loss of money. So, the complainant is entitled to gen an award as mentioned above.
Inspite of service of notice of this case, the O.P. did not appear in this case. Accordingly the case was heard ex-parte against the O.P.
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
In support of his case, the complainant has relied upon the contents of the complaint petition which has been duly supported by affidavit and also a bunch of photocopies of the documents and some original documents. We carefully perused the contents of the petition and the documents on which the complainant has relied upon. From the materials on record it is clear that the complainant with an intention to renew the motor insurance policy of his Maruti Swift Dzire VDi Car having registration No.WB 40 S9771, handed over a bankers cheque bearing No.305288 dated 19.2.2013 for Rs.12,274/- and the O.P. after taking three attempts on 23.2.2013, 6.3.2013 and 13.3.2013 encashed said bankers cheque and got total Rs.12,274/-. It further appears that on receipt of said bankers cheque of Rs.12,274/-, the O.P. issued policy No.015175116201 for the period from 21.2.2013 to 20.2.2014 and subsequently said policy was
(4)
cancelled with the reason that the bankers cheque for Rs.12,274/- was not encashed and the O.P. asked the complainant to make a fresh remittance of premium by issuing letter dated 18.3.2013. From the material on record it further appears that before the issuance of said letter the O.P. encashed said bankers cheque for Rs.12,274/- on 13.3.2013. From the above fact it is clear that there was deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the O.P. The evidence on record further shows that after the cancellation of the policy No.015175116201, again issued another policy being No. 015175116202 for the same period after deducting Rs.10,123/- as premium from the cheque amount of Rs.12,274/- and after returning the excess amount of Rs.2,151/-. The materials on record also shows that inspite of several requests the matter was not clarified by the O.P. to the complainant and for that the complainant was harassed by the RTO team and his vehicle was damaged forcibly by the RTO team. For such action of RTO team the complainant suffered loss and it clearly proves the deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the O.P.
From the evidence on record it appears that being asked by the O.P. the complainant was forced to deposit total cash Rs.12,300/- in the office of the O.P. for the purpose of renewal of policy and the O.P. without making any enquiry renewed the same by issuing the policy No.010073526200 for the period from 1.3.2013 to 28.2.2014 after deducting Rs.12,230/- as premium from the deposited cash amount of Rs.12,300/-. The major part of the said valid period was under the valid period of the policy No.015175116202 and subsequently the O.P. issued another policy being No.010076526201 for the same period starting from 1.3.2013 ending with 28.2.2014 deducting Rs.11,836/- as premium from said Rs.12,300/- and returning total Rs.464/ to the complainant. Inspite of request and demand made by the complainant, the O.P. did not regularize the matter removing the defects and anomalies and for which the complainant suffered mental agony and monitory loss. So, the O.P. is liable to pay heavy compensation to the complainant for such mental agony, harassment etc.
As the O.P. realized total Rs.11,836/- as premium by issuing policy No.010073526201 for the period from 1.3.2013 to 28.2.2014 major part of which was under the period of policy No.015175116202. So, the O.P. is liable to return back the such premium amount of Rs.11,836/- to the complainant with interest @ 12% which will be calculated for the period from 1.3.2013 till the date of realization of the same.
(5)
As the O.P. after cancelling the first policy No.015175116201 issued another policy No.015175116202 for the period from 21.2.2013 to 20.2.2014 after returning the excess amount and as the same was valid for the period as mentioned above the complainant is not entitled to get back Rs.9,659/-. The complainant has failed to adduce any documentary evidence showing consumption of extra fuel for the period from 1.5.2013 to 31.5.2014 so he is not entitled to get any award for Rs.52,000/-. Though the complainant in the complaint petition has stated that the RTO team on 12.7.2013 damaged his vehicle on the midway to Calcutta, the complainant has adduced no corroborative evidence showing such damage and repairing cost. So, we find that the complainant is not entitled to get the estimated cost of repairing of his vehicle.
In view of our above discussions we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get an award directing the O.P. to pay Rs.11,836/- with interest @ 12% p.a. which will be calculated for the period from 1.3.2013 to till the date of realization of the same, directing the O.P. to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment etc., deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the O.P. and directing the O.P. to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation cost.
Thus the case succeeds in part. Fees paid is correct.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the D.F. Case being No. 111/2014 is allowed in part ex-parte against the O.P. without cost. that the complainant do get an award directing the O.P. to pay Rs.11,836/- with interest @ 12% p.a. which will be calculated for the period from 1.3.2013 till the date of realization of the same, to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment etc. of the complainant and for deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the O.P. and to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation cost.
That the O.P. is directed to pay the awarded amount as mentioned above within one month from this day to the complainant, failing which the complainant will be at liberty to execute this order in accordance with law.
Coy of this order be supplied to the parties of this case, free of cost.
(Asoke Kr. Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Asoke Kr. Mandal)
President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member,
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
