Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/858/2014

Kulwant Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Jatinder Kumar Kamboj

14 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/858/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	29/12/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	14/08/2015

 

 

 

 

 

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

…............. Complainant.

Vs

 

1.   TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited, through its Managing Director, Peninsula Corporate Park, Piramal Tower, 15^th 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

 

…............. Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:   MRS.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Jatinder Kumar Kamboj, Advocate.
For OP No.1	:	Sh. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate.
For OP No.2	:	Sh. Saurav Goyal, Advocate.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, presiding MEMBER

 

 

          Succinctly put, the Complainant got her Honda City car bearing Regn.No.PB70 0002 insured with the Opposite Party No.1 vide Policy No. 0100780971 for the period 20.5.2013 to 19.5.2014. It has been averred that the Complainant wanted to get the insurance policy renewed for the next year i.e. 2014 to 2015 and for the said purpose purchased the insurance policy through Opposite Party No.2 and for the said purpose issued a Cheque bearing No. 249006 for Rs.17,791/- which was debited from her Bank Account No. 913010020353964 on 28.5.2014 (Bank Statement Annex.C-2). The other requisite formalities were also performed by the Complainant at the time of the purchase of the Policy. It has been alleged that after the purchase of the Policy for the period 2014-15, the Complainant had been visiting the Opposite Parties a number of times with the request to hand over her a copy of the policy, but there was no response from either of the Opposite Parties. It has been further alleged that the Complainant is working as a Director in Anter Impex Pvt. Ltd. and Anter Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and she was using the above said 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. Since the requisite service was not provided by the Opposite Parties the Complainant ultimately 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. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service, the Complainant has filed the present Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Party No.1 in its written statement while admitting the factual matrix of the case has pleaded that it 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’). The Complainant accepted the policy unconditionally and therefore, nothing survives in the Complaint. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service on its part and prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.

 

4.      Opposite Party No.2 in its written statement while admitting the factual matrix of the case has pleaded that Complainant approached it and deposited the premium amount of Rs.17,791/- on 28.05.2014 and same amount was sent to Opposite Party No.1 on same day. The answering Opposite Party only acted as a collecting agent for the premium of policy. The actual policy was to be issued by the Opposite Party No.1. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service on its part and prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.
5.      The Complainant also filed separate replications to the respective written statements filed by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 have been controverted.

 

6.      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

7.      We have heard the learned Counsel for the Complainant and Opposite Party No.2 and also perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of the parties.

 

8.      The averments made in the Complaint stands corroborated from the affidavit of the Complainant, copy of bank statement Annexure C-2, as well as copy of the insurance policy issued by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. dated 11.12.2014. The case of the Complainant is that she purchased an insurance policy of Opposite Party No.1 by issuing a Cheque for the requisite premium of Rs.17,791/- which was debited from her Bank Account on 28.5.2014 (Annex.C-2). The other requisite formalities were also performed by the Complainant, well in time. As per the case of the Complainant, despite visiting the Opposite Parties a number of times to hand over her a copy of the policy, the Opposite Parties did nothing to ventilate her grievance, due to which she could not use her vehicle and had to hire the Cab for the said purpose. It has been alleged that eventually she got issued another policy from the other service provider (The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.).

 

9.      The stand taken by Opposite Party No.1 is that it is nowhere deficient in service as the policy in question was issued on 11.12.2014 and it was unconditionally accepted by the Complainant.  

 

10.      The Opposite Party No.1 has clarified its stand that it deposited the premium amount of Rs.17,791/- on 28.5.2014 and sent the same to the Opposite Party No.1 on the same day. Therefore, it had performed its duty well in time. It has been further urged by Opposite Party No.2 that through e-mails (Annexures R-2 and R-4) dated 12.10.2014 and 28.11.2014 respectively, it informed the Opposite Party No.1 regarding the fact that the Complainant had neither received the Policy nor the refund and requested Opposite Party No.1 for an urgent and immediate action.

 

11.      After going through the evidence on record, we feel that the only obligation on the part of AXIS Bank Ltd. (Opposite Party No.2) was that whenever it received the payment from the Complainant, it had to transfer the same to Opposite Party No.1, immediately, which was admittedly done by it well in time. Even the same fact is not denied by Opposite Party No.1 i.e. the receiver of the aforesaid amount. Hence, we opine that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.2, therefore, the Complaint stands dismissed qua it.

 

12.      Evidently, the requisite amount for the policy in question was received by the Opposite Party No.1 on 28.5.2015, but despite that it failed to deliver the insurance policy to the Complainant irrespective of her numerous requests to that effect. In the absence of the policy, certainly the Complainant had to undergo tremendous mental agony and harassment, as she could not take her vehicle on the roads for commuting to her office and other places. Needless to mention here that in the absence of the policy no prudent person would take his/her vehicle out on the road with the fear that the vehicle could be challaned or impounded. Furthermore, the Opposite Party No.1 has miserably failed to explain why it has not issued the Policy to the Complainant till she got other policy from other insurance company and why it kept the policy of the Complainant pending without any fault of her. Therefore, the act of Opposite Party No.1 in not issuing the insurance policy even after receiving the requisite amount, well in time, makes a clear pointer towards deficiency in service and its indulgence in unfair trade practice, which in turn has definitely caused tremendous mental and physical harassment to the Complainant. 

 

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.  

 

15.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced                               Sd/-

14^th August, 2015                             (SURJEET KAUR)                                                                                                      PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER