BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 163/2004 Filed on 12.04.2004
Dated : 15.03.2011
Complainant:
Ravikrishnan. N.R, Advocate, House No. 101, N.S.P. Nagar, Kesavadasapuram, Thiruvananthapuram.
Opposite party :
The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office-II, St. Mary Villa, Ulloor, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. G.S. Kalkura)
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 08.12.2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and reheard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 31.12.2010, the Forum on 15.03.2011 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER
Complainant is an advocate practicing in the Thiruvananthapuram District Court Centre for the last more than 7 years and his grievance is as follows: The complainant purchased a new Hero Honda Passion Plus from the Cheran Automobiles Ltd. Neeramankara on 09.03.2004. The same was insured with the opposite party on the same day itself and the necessary steps for insuring and registering the bike was taken by the automobile agency itself. The automobile agency informed the complainant that the policy document will be issued to him through post by the opposite party within 2 to 3 days from the date of insuring the bike i.e; 09.03.2004. But till date the policy document is not served to the complainant. The complainant approached the opposite party and enquired about the delay in issuing the policy document to the complainant. Then the opposite party informed the complainant that the documents were already posted on 16th March itself and the same will reach the complainant very shortly. As the documents concerned did not reach the complainant within the said time, the complainant issued a notice to the opposite party on 25.03.2004. To the said notice, the opposite party issued a reply to the complainant dated 30.03.2004. In the said reply also the opposite party alleged that the policy documents were posted to the complainant on 16th March 2004. They further said that if the complainant requires the document, then he has to pay an additional sum of Rs. 50/- to the opposite parties, that too for a duplicate copy of the policy. The opposite party is legally bound to issue the original policy to the complainant and non-issuance of the policy to the complainant will amount deficiency in service. Moreover the tactics adopted by the opposite party to extract money from the complainant, i.e; suppressing the original policy and requiring the complainant to remit additional amount for getting the duplicate amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint.
The opposite party has filed their version contending as follows: The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on practice. This opposite party on receipt of the proposal form had issued a cover note to the complainant and the same is in the custody of the complainant. The allegation of the complainant that till date, the policy document is not served on him is baseless and denied. The original policy along with terms and conditions has been duly issued to the complainant. The said policy issued in the due course of business, has not been returned undelivered back to the opposite party. Thus it is to be presumed that the policy has been delivered to the complainant in due course. The complainant without any bonafides issued a registered letter dated 25.03.2004, falsely alleging that the policy has not reached him and directed the opposite party to issue a policy within three days. The opposite party in response to the complainant's letter had informed the complainant that the policy has already been issued to him and as per India Motor Tariff, a duplicate insurance policy can be issued only on receipt of specific request from the insured and remittance of Rs. 50/- and it was further informed that in case the complainant requires a duplicate copy of the policy, he was requested to issue a specific request along with remittance of Rs. 50/-, so as to enable them to issue the same. The opposite party had already issued the original policy to the complainant and therefore there is no deficiency of service of any nature on the part of the opposite party. There has been no unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. The allegations have been invented by the complainant for the sake of this case. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory costs.
Complainant has been examined as PW1 and marked Exts. P1 & P2. DW1 has been examined on behalf of opposite party and marked Exts. D1 to D6.
The points for consideration are:-
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed for?
Points (i) & (ii):- The allegation of the complainant is that he has not been issued with the policy documents till the date of filing of the complaint. But during the trial as per the order of this Forum on 19.01.2005, the opposite party has issued the policy to the complainant and hence the first relief in the complaint has been satisfied. Now the complainant claims only compensation and costs.
The opposite party contends that the original policy was already issued to the party and hence he is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the complaint. Complainant as PW1 has deposed to the question put to him by the opposite party that whether he will receive a letter sent to him in the address “Ravikrishnan, N.R, Sree Saroj, T.C 18/1504, NSP Nagar, Kesavadasapuram, Thiruvananthapuram-14”, for which he had answered negatively and deposed that he would get the letter only if it is sent in the Thiruvananthapuram-4. Opposite party has produced the triplicate of the policy wherein the address of the complainant/insured has been mentioned as Thiruvananthapuram-4. But in the proposal form, Ext. D2, the proposer's full name and address has been mentioned wherein the pin code has been mentioned as Thiruvananthapuram-14. The complainant has stated that Ext. D2 has not been filled by him and the signature also is not that of the complainant. When we compare the signatures put in the signature of proposer in Ext. D2 with that of the other signatures of the complainant in other documents it is evident that there is a drastic change in the signatures. So the allegation of the complainant that the proposal form has not been filled by him stands confirmed. As per Ext. D6 it is seen that the opposite party has sent communication to the complainant. But from Ext. D2 itself it is very evident that the said communication would not reach the complainant if it is sent in the address mentioned in Ext. D2. Opposite party has not produced the original of Ext. D2 for which DW1 has deposed that since the same being a 2004 matter it would have been destroyed during the course of disposing old records in the regular period. But the complainant had put a specific question that “അങ്ങനെ കോടതിയില് pending-ല് ഇരിക്കുന്ന case-ന്റെ original record നശിപ്പിക്കാന് കാരണം എന്താണ്? (Q) Regular course of business-ല് നടക്കുന്ന activity- യാണ് disposal of old records. At this point of time I cannot say that the document is available, subject to verification. (A) But the original of Ext. D2 has not been produced before the Forum by the opposite party.
From the above discussions and evidence on record it could be seen that the address of the complainant in Ext. D1 & D2 differs and since the document has been sent by the opposite party in the address mentioned in Ext. D2, complainant has not received the same which has led the complainant to file this complaint. In the above circumstance we find that there is deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite party in not sending the policy to the complainant in the correct address in time for which the complainant has to be compensated for the sufferings he had to undergo. Furthermore the contention of the opposite party that as per the provisions of India Motor Tariff guidelines, a duplicate insurance policy can be issued only on receipt of specific request from the insured and remittance of Rs. 50/- cannot be accepted since there is no fault on the part of the complainant. In the above circumstance we hereby allow the complaint and we find that the complainant is entitled for compensation and cost of Rs. 3,000/-.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of order failing which the above amount shall carry interest at 9% from the date of receipt of the order.
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 Forum, this the 15th day of March 2011.
Sd/-
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
Sd/-
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
jb
O.P. No. 163/2004
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :
PW1 - Ravikrishnan. N.R
II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Copy of notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party
dated 30.03.2004
P2 - Reply issued by the opposite party.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :
DW1 - Sunil V. Kariat
IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :
D1 - Copy of cover note issued in respect of complainant's vehicle.
D2 - Copy of proposal form for private cars/motorised two wheelers package policy and liability only policy.
D3 - Copy of notice dated 25.03.2004 issued by the complainant to the opposite party.
D4 - Copy of reply letter dated 30.03.2004 issued by opposite party to complainant.
D5 - Copy of acknowledgement card.
D6 - Copy of page No. 12 & 13 of postage book maintained by the opposite party.
PRESIDENT
