THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present: Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member CC. No.36/2009 Tuesday, the 30th day of March, 2010. Petitioner : Raino Jose, Kannanthara House, Kuravilangad. (By Adv. T.M Xavierkutty) Opposite parties 1) M/s. Bajaj Alianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., G.E Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune -411066 Reptd. By its Chief Exe. Officer. 2) Branch Manager, M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. III rd Floor, YMCA Building, Sasthri Road, Kottayam. (By Adv. Agi Joseph) O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is the owner of one Toyota Innova 2007 Model private car with registration No. KL 01 AR 1080. Petitioner purchased the vehicle from one Muhammed Rahim after closing the Hire Purchase transactions in respect of the vehicle. The vehicle is registered in the name of the petitioner with effect from 16..6..2008. For renewal of the insurance of the petitioner paid Rs. 17500/- by way of a post dated Cheque dated Dtd. 23..7..2008. The said amount is paid by the petitioner to the second opposite party. Insurance company towards package policy premium by valuing vehicle at Rs. 7,20,000/- . The value of the vehicle was fixed by the second opposite party. There upon the Branch Executive of the second opposite party issued the motor vehicle -2- cover note dated 22..7..2008. But the opposite party had not issued original insurance certificate. When delay was caused in issuing the insurance certificate petitioner contacted the second opposite party where upon 2nd opposite party issued an insurance policy relating to the said vehicle in the name of Sri. Muhammed Rahim, the prior owner. The valuation shown was Rs. 6 lakhs and the policy premium was Rs. 17,500/-. Second opposite party. Further insisted the petitioner to pay further amount of Rs. 5,000/- more to change the policy of the vehicle from the name of Muhammed Rahim to the petitioners name. Petitioner resisted the demand of the opposite party and later second opposite party conceded saying that it is a mistake caused to the executive and company will cancel the policy and refund the amount to the petitioner without delay. In spite of repeated request and follow up action on the part of the petitioner, opposite party had not paid the amount so far. On 27..11..2008 petitioner issued a registered Lawyers Notice to the opposite party but the opposite party had not heed to the demands of the petitioner. . According to the opposite party act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service. So, he prays for an order directing the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs. 17,500/- . Petitioner also claims Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and 3,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party insurance is a contract between the insured and the insurer and the premium for the vehicle is fixed as per the regulations of India Motor Tariff . Rs. 17,500/- is the scheduled premium for a package policy for the type of vehicle Toyota Innova for a sum assured of Rs. 6,00,000/-. Insurance -3- company collected this premium as a continuation of the policy by giving no claim bonus to the insured Muhammed Rahim. No claim bonus is giving to the insured and not to the vehicle. It is true that Rs. 5,000 /- has to be paid additionally for issuing a package policy, for the vehicle in the name of the petitioner. Petitioner is entitled to change liability only coverage of the vehicle in his name after paying Rs. 50/- by showing documents of the change of ownerships as per MV Act. Petitioner has not produced any document to prove the previous ownership of the vehicle and his right of no claim bonus. So, demand of further premium is legally correct as per the provisions Tariff Advisory Committee. According to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs. Points for determinations are: i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? ii) Relief and costs. Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A6 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 document on the side of the opposite party. Point No. 1 Ext. A1 is the Motor Vehicle Cover note issued by the opposite party to the petitioner . From the face of Ext. A1 it can be seen that the period of the cover note expired on completion of 60 days from the date of issue. GR 22 (ii) of the Indian Motor Tariff, in terms of rule 142 Sub rule (ii) of Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989. A cover note shall be valid for 60 days from the date of issue and the insurer shall issue a policy -4- of insurance before the date of expiry of the cover note. Petitioner produced policy certificate issued by the opposite party to the petitioner and said document is marked as Ext. A3. In Ext. A3 the name of the insured is shown as Muhammed Rahim. So from Ext. A3 it can be seen that no policy certificate as per GR 22 (2) of the Indian Motor Tariff is issued to the petitioner. As per the law period of cover note will expire on completion of 60 days from the date of issue of cover note. So in effect the petitioner cannot put the vehicle on road after 60 days of issue. The contention of the opposite party is that the premium for the vehicle is fixed as per regulation of Indian Motor Tariff and Rs. 17,500/- is scheduled premium on a package policy for a type of Totota Innova vehicle. The counsel for the opposite party argued that opposite party collected premium as a continuation of the policy by giving no claim bonus to the insured Muhammed Rahim. No claim bonus is giving to the insured and not to the vehicle The claim of the additional amount of premium of Rs. 5,000/- is as per the provisions of the Tariff advisory Committee. In our view the said argument of the petitioner will not sustain. We agree that the premium is computed as per GR 14 of the Indian Motor Tariff and it is calculated in accordance with the premium computation tables comparing the tariff . Opposite party has not produced any documents to substantiate their claim of additional amount of Rs. 5,000/-. From Ext. A1 it can be seen that Rs. 17,500/- was received from the petitioner as final premium. Further, more from Ext. A1 it can be seen that the cover note is issued in the name of the petitioner. In our view act of the opposite party in claiming an additional amount other than the amount shown in Ext. A1 is a clear deficiency in service. Due to the act of the opposite party we presume that the -5- petitioner could not use vehicle after 60 days of the date of issue of cover note till he obtains certificate of insurance. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In view of finding in point No. 1, petition is allowed and petitioner is entitled to relief sought for. In the result opposite party is ordered to refund the amount of Rs. 17,500/- to the petitioner with 12% interest from 23..7..2008 till realization. Since interest is allowed no compensation is ordered. Opposite party is ordered to pay Rs. 2,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of March 2010. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/- APPENDIX Documents for the Petitioner Ext. A1: Copy of cover note Ext. A2: Copy of certificate of registration of vehicle Ext. A3: Copy of Motor policy schedule Ext. A4: Copy of Lawyers notice Ext. A5: Postal receipts Ext. A6 series Postal acknowledgement card Document for the Opposite party: Ext. B1: Copy of relevant page of IMT. By Order, Senior Superintendent amp/ 5 cs.
| | HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas, Member | HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan, Member | | 
