Date of filing: 22.12.2017 Date of Order : 26.07.2018
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
THURSDAY THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2018
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 103 / 2017
Miriyala Siva Krishna, Age 30 years,
S/o M. Venkata Subbaiah,
D.No.9/52 J, Sreenivas Nagar,
Mannur, Rajampet-516 115. ….Complainant.
Vs.
- The Manager,
Shriram Transport Finance Co., Ltd.,
Beside Siddeshwara Theatre,
Chennai main Road,
Railway Kodur-516 101
Kadapa District.
- Managing Director,
Shriram Transport Finance Co., Ltd.,
101-105, IstFloor B Wing,
Shiv Chambers, Sector-II
CBDBELAPUR, NAVI MUMBAI-400 614.….. Opposite parties.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 12-7-2018 in the presence of complainant appeared as in person and Sri V. Ram Mohan, Advocate Kadapa appeared on behalf of opposite parties no.1 and 2, and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Sri V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1. The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) to direct the opposite parties to return the five premium installments amount totaling Rs.1,615/-, to pay Rs.90,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
2. The brief averments of the complaint which are in vernacular (Telugu Language) are as follows:-
The Complainant took loan from opposite party no.1 and purchased Tata Ace Luggage Auto for his livelihood for an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- on Dt. 8-5-2017 and on 29-5-12017 he insured the said vehicle with opposite party no.2 for an amount of Rs.19,368/-. He has to pay Rs.7,420/- per month towards loan amount and Rs.1,831/- towards insurance to the vehicle and he was paying the same regularly. But the opposite parties collected Rs.323/- p.m. in addition to the loan amount installments from 8-5-2017 and when questioned about the excess collection Rs.323/- from him per month, the field officer said that he will enquire about the excess payment but pay the same now. The complainant again received message to pay Rs.323/- excess amount in addition to the loan amount installments. He strictly objected and asked the officer but the officer prolonged the matter and not replied. The complainant also telephoned to the previous manager of opposite parties about the monthly installments of Rs.323/- who replied the said premium towards insurance is very less amount being Rs.323/- and the same is towards personal policy of him and it is good for him then he approached opposite parties no.1 and 2 by writing letter that he has no position to pay the insurance for personal policy premium and he does not want insurance policy, then opposite party no.1 called him and tried to convince that policy was only for his safety and later they give a policy bond. The complainant questioned about the issuing of policy in his name without his consent and knowledge of him. They told the policy was issued in the name of complainant to fulfill the target of the company and pay premium at least 3 years at Rs.3,880/- p.a. which is unable to pay by him. The complainant asked several times for return of his excess amount Rs.1,615/- but opposite parties did not responded. Thus the opposite parties caused mental agony and loss. Hence, this complaint for the above reliefs.
3. Opposite party no.1 filed written version/counter and the same has been adopted by opposite party no.2 by filing memo.
They denied the allegations as pleaded by the complainant regarding issuing of policy without his consent collecting the premiums and called upon the petitioner to prove all of them.
4)It is further averred the petitioner himself approached the opposite parties saying that he intends to obtain policy for his security and gave declaration form i.e., he is hale and healthy to obtain the insurance policy to pay Rs.3,880/-. The opposite parties never insisted the complainant to take insurance policy, the complainant himself obtained insurance policy in full state of mind, knowledge and willfully, but the complainant filed this complaint on frivolous grounds with malafied intention. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed as no mental agony, no loss was caused to the complainant.
5) No oral evidence has been let in by the both parties . But on behalf of the complainant his affidavit is filed and got marked as Ex. A1 to Ex. A4 . On behalf of the opposite parties affidavit not filed, but documents filed and got marked as Ex. B1 and B2 and closed.
6) Both parties filed written arguments. Heard arguments on both sides and considered the written arguments and perused the material placed on record.
7) The points that arises for determination are as follows:-
- Whether is there any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs, if so to what extent ?
- To what relief.
Point No.1 and 2 :- These two points are connected to one another. Hence, they are taken up discussion together for the sake of convenience and better understanding.
The complainant in person contended that he has been paying the installments of vehicle loan and insurance to the vehicle regularly without default and another policy in his name is not necessary to him but without his consent the opposite parties said one policy was issued to him and he had to pay Rs.323/- per month i.e., Rs.3,880/- per year which is huge sum for him as he had already paying nearly Rs.10000/- towards loan installment of vehicle and vehicle insurance. Therefore the amount of Rs.1615/- collected from him by opposite parties atRs.323/- p.m. is to be refunded to him as he has no interest in obtaining personal policy and the policy said to have been issued is without his consent. Hence, he is entitled for the above reliefs.
8) Per contra learned counsel for opposite parties submits that policy was issued with the consent of complainant and the same is to be cancelled after 3 years and the policy is already lapsed as premium is not paid by the complainant. Therefore no deficiency of service no loss, no mental agony to the complainant. Hence, complaint is liable to be dismissed.
9) There is no dispute between the parties that complainant paid Rs.323/- p.m. for five months total Rs.1,615/- towards personal insurance policy of complainant. According to complainant he never had thought of obtaining personal policy but opposite parties without his consent and knowledge issued the policy and collected Rs.323/- p.m. for five months which is a burden to him and he does not want to continue the same as he was cheated by opposite parties to reach their targets. The complainant issued Ex.A2 requesting to refund his money by cancelling his insurance policy no.NN071706082479 on 3-11-2017. He also issued another letter on Dt.9-12-2017 but the opposite parties did not reply or return the amount. They received above letters under Ex.A1. If really the complainant willfully obtained the above policy from opposite party no.1 and 2 they would have given reply to Ex.A2. But no such reply was given denying allegations in Ex.A2 letters. Therefore this gives strength to the contention of complainant that personal policy was issued to him without his consent and knowledge but by simply obtain his signatures while granting vehicle loan to him by the opposite parties. According to complainant he is eaking out his livelihood by running luggage auto and paying monthly installments on the vehicle loan with vehicle insurance. Paying monthly premium to personal insurance is another burden to him and he is not able to pay the same besides maintaining his family. As per Ex.A3, the date of birth of his wife Miriyala Durganjali is 5-1-1998 where as in Ex.B2 policy schedule date of birth her is shown as 34 years which is not correct. So the policy was issued to the complainant with incorrect particulars without his knowledge and consent by the opposite parties. There if any fraud is played on the complainant by opposite parties and issued policy, the complainant can avoid the target of insurance and come out of the policy and in such case. The complainant is entitled for refund of premium amounts paid by him towards policy. In this case the complainant established that without his consent the policy no. NN071706082479 was issued by the opposite parties to the complainant and collected Rs.323/- p.m. from 5-8-2017 totalling Rs.1,615/-. Hence the complainant is entitled for refund of that amount from the opposite parties. Thus we see deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and complainant is entitled for refund of the amount of Rs.1,615/- besides Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the complaint. Accordingly points 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the complainant.
10) Point No. iii:- In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay Rs.1,615/- (the amount collected from the complainant towards premium ofRs.323/-p.m. for five months) and shall pay Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the complaint, within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amount shall carry interest at 9% p.a. till realization. Rest of the claim of the complainant is disallowed.
Dictated to the Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 26th day of July, 2018.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined
For complainant : NIL For opposite party : Nil
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Complainant :-
Ex. A1 :- P/c of Postal Acknowledgement Receipts, Dt. 3-11-2017 and 9-12-2017.
Ex. A2 :- P/c of policy cancellation request letter dated 3-11-2017 and 9-12-2017.
Ex. A3:- P/c of aadhar card for age proof.
Ex. A4:- P/c of Account Statement of Shriram Transport.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite parties :–
Ex. B1:- P/c of declaration of Good health (D &H) from Dated.1-6-2017.
Ex.B2:- P/c of First premium report Dt. 29-6-2017 and certificate.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to
- Miriyala Siva Krishna,
S/o M. Venkata Subbaiah,
D.No.9/52 J, Sreenivas Nagar,
Mannur, Rajampet-516 115
- Sri V. Ram Mohan, Advocate for Opposite parties.
P.R.
