Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

144/2014

J.Gunasekaran,S/o.Jeevarathinam, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, M/s.KLN Motors Agencies(P) Ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Kamalakannan

22 Feb 2017

ORDER

  

                                                            Complaint presented on:  16.07.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  22.02.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

WEDNESDAY THE 22^nd   DAY OF FEBRUAR 2017

 

C.C.NO.144/2014

 

 

 

Mr.J.Gunasekar, S/o.Jeevarathinam,

Plot No.98, 2^nd Main Road, Porur Garden,

Phase – 2, Vanagaram, Chennai – 600 095.

 

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

1. The Manager,

M/s. KLN Motor Agencies (P) Limited,

No.8 (NP), Developed Plot, Guindy Industrial Estate,

Ekkanttuthangal, Chennai – 600 097.

 

2.The Manager,

M/s. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,

Door No:12,  IInd Floor, H-2035, 15^th Main Road,

Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040.

 

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 18.07.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s M.Kamalakannan

Counsel for 1st Opposite Party               : M/s.Lavanya Shankar

 

Counsel for 2^nd Opposite Party                     : Mrs. Elveera Ravindran, K.Vinod

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          The Complainant filed this Complaint to direct the Opposite Parties to make necessary correction in the insurance policy No.1203732311001225 and also for compensation with cost of the Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

The 1^st Opposite Party is the authorized dealer of Chevrolet Car. The Complainant approached the 1^st Opposite Party to purchase the Chevrolet Beat (PS) model car. The first  Opposite Party issued invoice dated 30.12.2013 for a sum of Rs.4,85,991/- towards Ex-Show Room Prize of the car, a sum of Rs.22,453/- towards comprehensive  insurance premium,  a sum of Rs.60,502/- towards registration, road tax and other accessories charges and out of the above said amounts  a discount of Rs.35,000/- was given to the Complainant. The Complainant paid a total amount of Rs.5,34,244/- on various dates. The Complainant was issued with a cover note of reliance insurance dated 13.01.2014 for the Complainant vehicle and wherein the total premium paid was at Rs.15,494/.  However, the first Opposite Party collected a sum of Rs.22,453/-  towards insurance premium. The Complainant was shocked to note that the policy premium shown was not the actual amount collected from him. The Complainant left the vehicle with TVS Sundaram Motors, Chennai for repair and at the time only he learnt that the insurance was not covered bumper to bumper. Then, the Complainant contacted the 1^st Opposite Party sales head and he informed to the Complainant about the mistake crept in while the policy was taken. He also assured that he would rectify the same.  Further in the RC Book also the model of the car was wrongly mentioned as Beat 1.0 LS Diesel instead of Beat 1.0 PS LS Diesel model. Due to the wrong mentioning of model of the car the Complainant suffered with mental agony. The 1^st Opposite Party having collected higher premium amount from the Complainant and paid lesser amount to the 2^nd Opposite Party to issue policy and model also defectively entered in the RC Book is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint to make necessary correction in the policy to include bumper to bumper for the value of Rs.4,61,691/- and also compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint.      

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  1^st  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

The 1^st Opposite Party admits the date of purchase, vehicle make & model amount collected towards the sale consideration of the vehicle, insurance & Road Tax, as the same are matter of archives. The 1^st Opposite Party to set the record straight states that, it’s a trade practice that when a vehicle is booked the dealer raise an comprehensive invoice including the premium supposed to be paid towards vehicle insurance because the passing on the insurance cover note at the time of delivery of the vehicle is must as no owner would dare ply the vehicle without the same.   The Complainant at the time of taking delivery of the vehicle was fully aware of intricacies of the cover note, such being the factual position it lies ill on the Complainant’s mouth to state that, on finding discrepancy in the cover note he draw our attention, upon which we assured to do the needful. The insurance company chosen by the purchaser themselves and on receipt of cover note from the insurance company the same would be handed over to the purchaser at the time of delivery of the vehicle.  The Complainant handed over the vehicle to Sundaram Motors for repairing the rear bumper with necessary insurance claim; however it was then brought to his knowledge that his insurance policy for the vehicle is ordinary one. The 1^st Opposite Party explicitly denies that, the Complainant contacted their Sales Head, who not only admitted the mistake but also agreed to take up the issue with the 2^nd Opposite Party. This Opposite Party is not inclined to express anything in context to the visit undertaken by the 2^nd Opposite Party’s Sales Team as admittedly it was outside their domain. This Opposite Party is neither the master nor the 2^nd Opposite Party much less than their servant under such circumstances, it is nothing but unfair on the part of the Complainant to point fingers upon this Opposite Party, for alleged blemish of the 2^nd Opposite Party. With regard to the discrepancy in the R.C.Book, though the error has been committed by the statutory authority still this Opposite Party has been impressing upon the Complainant to hand over the R.C.Book with them for necessary action, which the Complainant for reason best known is not willing to do, rather trying to take advantage of his own wrong, which perse is not appreciable. The 1^st Opposite Party states that, as a good will measure from their side a sum of Rs.7,000/- has been contributed towards the insurance premium, which the Complainant is very much aware, however pretends otherwise.  The Complainant suppressed the fact that the 1^st Opposite Party ready & willing to put the issue to a quietus and called upon the Complainant to hand over the R.C.Book to take up the issue with R.T.O., and ensure that the discrepancy found in the R.C.Book is rectified, as far the insurance dispute they have no role to play as admittedly, it is the 2^nd Opposite Party who has to take a call.  The 1^st Opposite Party without prejudice to the foregoing submission are even now ready & willing to go out of their way in resolving the error that finds place in the R.C.Book, subject to the Complainant co-operating with them. Hence the Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 2^nd OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

According to the Complainant he received a cover note said to have been issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party for a sum of Rs.15,494/-. This Opposite Party submits that it is admitted by the Complainant that only the first Opposite Party was involved in all the transactions and in any event the same does not concern this Opposite Party. The Complainant has clearly admitted that he had brought to the knowledge of the first Opposite Party alone about the difference in the premium amount and the Complainant did not intimate this Opposite Party as he ought to have done as a prudent person. Further the Complainant is put to strict proof of his allegation that he had contacted TVS Sundaram Motors,  Noombal, Chennai 77 for attending  the repair in the rear bumper. The Complainant had not stated how the damage had occurred in the first place and whether the repairer was an approved repairer. In any event no intimation was received by this Opposite Party and hence this Opposite Party is not liable.  This Opposite Party submits that on receipt of the claim made by the Complainant, this Opposite Party duly appointed an independent surveyor and issued a letter dt 14.05.2014 addressed to the Complainant closing the claim as follows:

1.As per the telephonic conversation had without surveyor on 14.05.2014 we are given to understand that you have not produced the vehicle for inspection and not submitted the documents and not interested to claim and hence withdrawing the claim on the basis of this letter and treating the same closed as “No Claim”.

The Complainant has admitted that his contention was only against the first Opposite Party and in no way this Opposite Party concerned. This Opposite Party submits that he had issued a policy covering the period from 13.01.2014 to 12.01.2015 and the said period had been stated in the proposal form signed by the Complainant himself, cover note and policy of insurance issued by this Opposite Party. This Opposite Party had  issued a policy covering the IDV at Rs.4,32,081/- being the value of the car as per the proposal form submitted by the Complainant and only on such assessment the premium was levied the charge at Rs.11,853/-. Hence having accepted the said policy of insurance the Complainant cannot now come forward and states false allegations and mislead this Hon’ble Forum.  This Opposite Party submits  that the Complainant is making wild allegations which are not substantiated and this Opposite Party is not liable to make any correction and not liable to pay Rs.2,00,000/- for any mental agony. The Opposite Parties submit that the contract of insurance is a contract of “Uberrimae Fider’ ‘Utmost Good Faith’ and both the contracting parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. Hence this Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.

4. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

 

5.  POINT NO :1

          It is an admitted fact that the Complainant purchased   the Chevrolet   Beat (PS) model car  from the 1^st Opposite Party  for the valuable consideration of Rs.5,34,244/- paid through Ex.A2 to Ex.A4 on various dates. The 1^st Opposite Party issued Ex.A1 invoice to the Complainant and mentioning  the price of the  car,  comprehensive insurance premium and other expenses including registration and accessories and the 1^st Opposite Party only collected the insurance amount and registration charges and he only did the registration of the car of the Complainant.

          6. According to the Complainant the Opposite Parties have committed the following deficiencies that

i)the 1^st Opposite Party collected towards comprehensive (bumper to bumper) premium of Rs.22,453/- as per Ex.A1 and however Ex.A5 cover note issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party only for a sum of Rs.15,494/-  towards premium  which is lesser amount than the collected amount from the Complainant and

ii) the Complainant purchased only the Chevrolet   Beat (PS) model car and however in Ex.A6 RC Book  the model referred in column No.11 as only Beat LS diesel and in the said RC Book PS is omitted and therefore the Complainant is referred with mental agony and other sufferings.

          7. Admittedly the 1^st Opposite Party collected a sum of Rs.22,453/- towards payment of comprehensive premium for insurance policy. The 2^nd Opposite Party issued Ex.A4 cover note only for an amount of Rs.15,494/- for insurance. Ex.B1 is the policy issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party for the Complainant vehicles purchased from the 1^st Opposite Party. In Ex.B1 the premium paid only an amount of Rs.11,853/-. Therefore though the 1^st Opposite Party collected a sum of Rs.22,453/- he paid only a sum of Rs.11,853/- to the 2^nd Opposite Party to issue the Ex.B1 policy. The remaining amount of Rs.10,600/- collected by the 1^st Opposite Party was not refunded to the Complainant . Hence the 1^st Opposite Party  collected higher amount for insurance and paid a lesser amount for the policy establishes that the 1^st Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service in that respect.

8. As for as, the 2^nd Opposite Party is concerned he is not directly had transactions with the Complainant and he issued a policy as requested by the 1^st Opposite Party. It is not the case of the 1^st Opposite Party that he had paid entire amount of Rs.22,453/- collected from the Complainant to the 2^nd Opposite Party for issuance of policy. Therefore, the 2^nd Opposite Party issued the policy what was the amount paid to him by the 1^st Opposite Party and therefore the 2^nd Opposite Party had not committed any deficiency in service.

9. The Ex.A6 is the RC Book issued to the Complainant vehicle. The Complainant purchased Beat 1.0 PS LS Diesel model vehicle. Whereas in the RC Book the model mentioned as Beat 1.0 LS Diesel. Hence according to the Complainant the model of the vehicle purchased by him was not mentioned in his RC Book is deficiency. The defect in the RC Book was informed to the 1^st Opposite Party through Ex.A9 legal notice.  However, the 1^st Opposite Party had not issued any reply for the same that he is ready to rectify defect in the RC Book. Only after filling this Complaint, the 1^st Opposite Party only in his written version stated that he is ready and willing to rectify the defect even now the Complainant cooperates for the same. Immediately after receipt of the notice the 1^st Opposite Party failed to rectify the  actual model in the RC Book proves that he had committed deficiency in service and whereas the 2^nd Opposite Party concerned he is not a party to the document and hence he had not committed any deficiency in service in this respect.             

10. Therefore, in view of the forgoing discussions, we hold that the 1^st Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service and the 2^nd Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service.

11. POINT NO:2

The 1^st Opposite Party collected a sum of Rs.10,600/- from the Complainant towards excess amount for the 1^st premium and the said amount he had not refunded. Therefore the Complainant is entitled for refund of the said sum of Rs.10,600/- from the 1^st Opposite Party. The 1^st Opposite Party even after notice failed to rectify the defect in the RC Book and also not refunded the excess amount collected by him, caused mental agony to the Complainant is acceptable and for the same it would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and apart from that a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The  1^st Opposite party is  ordered to refund a sum of Rs.10,600/- (Rupees ten thousand  and six hundred only) towards  the  excess premium amount  collected from  the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty  thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses. The Complaint in respect of the 2^nd Opposite Party is dismissed.

The above amount shall be paid to the Complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 22^nd day of February 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 30.12.2013                   Proforma Invoice issued by 1^st Opposite Party

Ex.A2 dated 30.12.2013                   Advance payment Receipt No.0002272

Ex.A3 dated 08.01.2014                   2^nd Advance payment Receipt No.0002377

Ex.A4 dated 13.01.2014                   Final payment receipt No.0002418

Ex.A5 dated 13.01.2014                   Reliance Insurance C.note No.114000042648

Ex.A6 dated 17.01.2014                   Certificate of Registration

Ex.A7 dated 29.01.2014                   Reliance Insurance Policy No.1203732311001225

Ex.A8 dated 06.02.2014                   Reliance Motor Private car endorsement schedule

Ex.A9 dated 09.05.2014                   Legal Notice

Ex.A10 dated NIL                             Delivery Reports 4 in Nos.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 2^nd OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated NIL                     Policy of Insurance

 

Ex.B2 dated NIL                     Terms and Conditions of the policy

 

Ex.B3 dated 14.05.2015                   Letter sent by Opposite Party to the Complainant

                                                   along with postal receipt

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1^st  OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

                                      ……….NIL ……..

 

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT