BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

C.C.No.414/2014     Filed on 17.10.2014

ORDER DATED: 30.03.2021

Complainant:

(by Adv. Renjith C.R.)

Opposite parties:

The order delivered on 30.03.2021

ORDER

SRI. VIJU  V.R.,  MEMBER:

            The complainant has presented this complaint before this forum under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle TATA MAGIC IRIS bearing Reg.No.KL-22-F-1577. Since the vehicle was having Insurance Hypothecation the insurance policy was arranged by the finance company.   The period of insurance was from 8-10-2013 to 7-10-2014.  After that when the insurance was renewed the period of the policy was mentioned as
28-10-2014 instead of 8-10-2014.  On 9-10-2014 itself the complainant had lodged a complaint before the TATA Motors Finance Ltd, Trivandrum Branch office.  But the complaint was not resolved by them.   The complainant send an e-mail to the company’s Bombay office and a reference No.1118435 was given to the complainant. But his grievance was not solved by the opposite parties 1 and 2.  Due to this deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 the complainant has to suffer a lot.  The complainant has to stop his school trip due to the act of the opposite parties 1 and 2.  So to uphold the credibility of the complainant before the parents he was compelled to take a vehicle on rent basis for the school trip.   Due to this the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.2,500/- per day.   So there is deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties 1 and 2, hence this complaint.

The Opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly filed version and averred that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.  It is admitted that the complainant is a customer of the opposite parties and availed a finance facility by hypothecating the vehicle owned by him.   The vehicle TATA MAGIC IRIS was purchased from Popular Mega Motors.  The sale was effected by the said seller of the vehicle.  The complainant was directly dealing with the dealer and on satisfying the vehicle about its quality and worthiness, he purchased the same.  The respondent has agreed to give financial facility to the complainant based on his request and recommendation of the dealer/seller.   The service offered is financial facility and the same was promptly given.  The registration and first insurance are made at the instance of the complainant by the dealer.  The seller has forwarded sale details only on getting funds from this opposite party.  As per the invoice of the dealer/seller the invoice date is 27.10.2013.  In this particular contract the dealer has forwarded invoice dated 27.10.2013 submitted by the complainant.  On the basis of the said invoice the opposite party has applied for the insurance of the vehicle belonging to the complainant.  The insurance company, i.e. National Insurance Company issued certificate of policy based on the records made available by the complainant through the dealer.  Accordingly the policy was issued showing validity from 28.10.2014 to 27.10.2014.  There is no wilful latches or deficiency of service from the part of the opposite parties in this regard.  The insurance company has verified records and policy is issued from the date of invoice submitted by the complainant.  There were no deficiency of service from the part of the opposite parties.  The complaint is filed without any bonafides and it is only experimental in nature.   Hence complaint may be dismissed with cost.

Issues to be ascertained:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties 1 and 2?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?

Issues (i) and (ii)

Both these issues are considered together for the sake of convenience. The complainant has filed affidavit in-lieu of chief examination and has produced 2 documents which were marked as Exts.P1and P2. Both these documents were objected during the time of marking them.  Complainant was examined as PW1 and he was cross-examined by opposite parties.   During cross examination Exts.D1 to D4 were marked.   Opposite parties have not filed affidavit in-lieu of chief examination.   The complainant and opposite parties have not filed argument notes.

            Even though the opposite parties have objected Exts.P1 and P2, it can be seen that the documents are the copies of the insurance policy.   The opposite parties have no case that the complainant has not taken insurance policies.   So the Exts.P1 and P2 can be taken in evidence.   In Ext.P1 the period of insurance is from 8-10-2013 to 7-10-2014 Midnight.  On going to Ext.P2 it can be seen that the period of insurance commences from 28-10-2014 to 27-10-2015.  So it can be seen that the policy was renewed after 20 days, for which the opposite parties has took contention that as per invoice of the dealer the invoice date is
27-10-2013.  So the insurance company has issued the policy showing validity from 28-10-2014 to 27-10-2015.   But it can be seen that the dates shown in Exts.D1and D2 is 27-09-2013.  In Ext.D3 the date shown as 27-10-2013 is hand written which was written after striking the original date 30-09-2013. This discrepancy in date has not been properly explained by the opposite parties 1 and 2.   In the version the opposite parties 1 and 2 have admitted that the opposite parties have applied for the insurance as per the invoice dated 27-10-13, if that be so they have to be stick on to this averment.   But they have admitted that they have issued a fresh policy covering from 8-10-14 to 7-10-15. So if the policy has been given as per Ext.D3 then the opposite parties have no obligation to change the policy already issued for a period from 28-10-2014 to 27-10-2015.   So the act of opposite parties itself shows that there is deficiency in service from their part.

            In the complaint the complainant has stated that he had suffered a lot due to the act of the opposite parties.  But he has not produced any document to show the same.   During his cross examination he deposed that “F\n¡v h­n-sb-Sp-¡m³ km[n-¡msX h¶-Xns\ XpSÀ¶v school trip apS-§n.  thsd h­n ]nSn¨v  Rm³ Ip«n-Isf sIm­p-t]m-bn-cp-¶p.  school trip apS-§nb kabw F{X Ip«n-Isf sIm­m-¡m³ D­m-bn-cp¶p (Q) 18 Ip«n-Isf. St. Gorites Schoolþse
Ip«n-I-fm-bn-cp-¶p.  Ip«n-I-fpsS ssIbn \n¶pw hm§p¶ hmS-Ibv¡v cko-Xn-Ã.   school trip ASn-¨-Xmbn ImWn-¡m³ tcJ-sbm-¶p-an-Ã.  Rm³ Ip«n-I-sftbm c£n-Xm-¡-sftbm km£n-bmbn hnkvX-cn-¡p-¶n-Ã.  hmS-Ibv¡v h­n FSp-¯Xv Fsâ kplr-¯mb N.C. NairþcpsS aI³ Sunil Kumarþsâ ssIbnÂ
\n¶p-am-Wv.  Sunil Kumarþsâ address Adn-bn-Ã.  Ccp-]Xv Znhkw kp\nÂ
Ipam-dn\v Znh-tk\ 1000/-cq] h¨p-sIm-Sp-¯p.  h­n-bpsS registration number   Adn-bn-Ã.  kp\n-en\v ss]k sImSp¯ tcJ-bn-Ã.  kp\n-ens\ km£n-bmbn hnkvX-cn-¡m³ Ign-bn-Ô. 

The complainant has not taken a single step to prove his loss.   So it cannot be allowed.

            Hence we find that the complainant has partly succeeded in proving that there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties 1 and 2.   Hence the opposite parties 1 and 2 are liable to compensate the complainant.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.   The opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand) to the complainant for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.2,500/-(Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred) towards the cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount except cost carries interest @ 9% per annum from the date of default till realisation.

             A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 30^th day of March, 2021.

SL

C.C.No.414/2014

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS

5. COURT EXHIBITS

                  Sd/-

PRESIDENT

SL