BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30th day of March, 2009

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.66/2008

Between

Complainant : Litty Ignatious

Poochalil House

Koduveli P.O.

Neyyassery.

(By Adv: K.M. Sanu)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager,

Popular Vehicles and Services,

Near St.Thomas Orthodox Church,

SH Mount P.O.,

Chavittuvari,

Kottayam-686006.

(By Adv: P.B. Rajeshkumar)

2. The Manager,

Popular Vehicles and Services,

Chazhikkattu Buildings,

Manakkadu Road,

Thodupuzha.

3. Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance

Company Ltd.,

D1 IInd floor, Amritha Towers,

KPCC Junction, MG Road,

Kochi-682011.

(By Adv: T.M. Babu)

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

The Complainant is a school teacher. She purchased a Maruthi 800 model car on 19.07.2007 and it was insured to the 3^rd opposite party through the Ist opposite party. At the time of insuring the vehicle, the complainant requested the policy including third party coverage, own damage coverage and gratuitous passenger coverage(IMT 70). But when the policy was issued, the policy never included passenger coverage and so the matter was informed to the Ist opposite party on 24.07.2007 by a letter stating the same and a reply was given by the 3^rd opposite party on 8.09.2007. In the reply it is stated that the opposite party never obtained any premium as per the gratuitous passenger policy. So the passengers would not get any coverage for the same. But a Personal Accident Coverage policy was included in the policy without the request of the complainant. The opposite party assured the complainant that the requested type of policy would be given to the complainant. So the complainant is entitled to get the same. The complainant was not able to drive the vehicle through the road with confidence because of the non-availability of the said policy. So the petition is filed for directing the opposite party for issuing a gratuitous passenger coverage policy and also for compensation.

2. As per the written version filed by the Ist opposite party, the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party. The policy is a gift of the Ist opposite party. So there is no consideration for the policy. No such request was given to the Ist opposite party by the complainant that a particular type of policy must be given to them. These matters were discussed with the husband of the complainant who is an advocate, knows all the details of the policy. The complainant never instructed any conditions to the opposite parties for getting a policy. Everything were decided by the husband of the complainant. No assurance was given by the Ist opposite party that, special type of policy would be given to the complainant. The complainant never utilized benefit of the policy during the policy period. No accident or any other damages were caused to the vehicle. So there is no inconvenience caused to the complainant.

3. In the written version filed by the 3rd opposite party, the complainant had never asked for the 3rd opposite party coverage, own damage cover or gratuitous passenger cover(IMT 70) as alleged by the complainant. It is submitted that gratuitous cover i.e, IMT 70 as sought for, by the complainant is not available in India Motor Tariff(IMT) Endorsements. Therefore the 3rd opposite party cannot provide any such cover which the Tariff Advisory Committee has not prescribed under the IMT Endorsements. Further there is nothing like IMT-70 in the present IMT endorsements in vogue since 30th June 2002 as prescribed by the Tariff Advisory Committee. So no such cover can be given by the 3rd opposite party. The motor insurance terms are not decided by the parties to the motor insurance contract, that is the insurer and the insured. The 3rd opposite party can issue motor policies only as per the India Motor Tariff as regulated and amended from time to time by the Tariff Advisory Committee(TAC). India Motor Tariff - "The Tariff Advisory Committee(hereinafter called TAC) has laid down rules, regulations, rates, advantages, terms and conditions, as contained herein, for transaction of motor insurance business in India in accordance with the Provisions of Part II B of the Insurance Act, 1938. This tariff supersedes the provisions of the India Motor Tariff in existence upto 30th June 2002. The provisions of this tariff are binding on all concerned and any breach of the tariff shall be a breach of the provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938". Therefore as per the endorsements prescribed under India Motor Tariff, all the motor policies are issued by the 3rd opposite party and in this instant case also private car package policy was issued to the complainant as per the India Motor Tariff and there is no such endorsement like IMT-70 in the tariff structure. The 3rd opposite party cannot be held liable for not issuing the policy coverage as sought by the complainant since the motor insurance is regulated by the Tariff Advisory Committee(TAC) and there is no deficiency in the part of the 3rd opposite party.

4. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

5. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P9 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DWs 1 and 2 and Ext.R1 to R4 marked on the side of the opposite parties.

6. The POINT :- Complainant purchased a Maruthi 800 car from the Ist opposite party and it was insured to the 3rd opposite party by the Ist opposite party. But the policy including gratuitous passenger coverage including IMT 70 was not given to the complainant. Complainant's husband was examined as PW1. As per PW1, the vehicle was purchased on 19.07.2007. At the time of purchase, the Ist opposite party agreed to insure the vehicle as per the request of the complainant. PW1 requested, the policy including third party coverage, own damage coverage, and gratuitous passenger coverage IMT 70. Ext.P2 is the copy of the insurance application form. Ext.P3 is the copy of the letter dated 17.07.2007 requested to get the policy including unlimited gratuitous passenger liability. Ext.P4 is the copy of the policy issued by the opposite party. Ext.P6 is the letter written by the opposite party states that "Gratuitous passenger - No liability in respect of them and the opposite party is not collecting any premium covering those passengers". DW1 is the Divisional Manager of Oriental Insurance Company. DW1 deposed that the insurance policy of the vehicles are based on the Indian Motor Tariff. There was no such IMT 70 endorsement policy exists at that time. Indian Motor Tariff is marked as Ext.R1. The insurance companies are working under the provisions of IRDA. They are not issuing the occupants liability insurance policy in 2007. The Manager of the Punjab National Bank was examined as DW2. As per DW2, they have issued a DD for Rs.1,97,469/- for the purchase of the vehicle. Ext.R2 is the copy of the same. The loan was for Rs.1,45,000/-, voucher for the same is Ext.R3. Balance amount was paid by the petitioner. As per the written version filed by the Ist opposite party and 2nd opposite party, the insurance policy was a free gift offered by the Ist opposite party. No premium was paid by the petitioner. So the complainant is not a consumer. As per the 3rd opposite party, gratuitous cover which is IMT 70 is not available in Indian Motor Tariff(IMT) Endorsements. So they cannot provide any such cover which the Tariff Advisory Committee has not prescribed under the IMT Endorsements.

7. On perusing the evidence, the complainant never produced any premium receipt for the policy. As per the deposition of the complainant, and as per Ext.P7 proforma invoice, the ex-showroom price for the vehicle is Rs.1,95,265/-. The bank supplied a DD for Rs.1,97,469/- for the vehicle including the loan and the amount paid by the petitioner. So the balance amount is only Rs.2,204/-, which is not enough for insurance amount. As per Ext. P7, the insurance premium amount is Rs.5,889/-, road tax is Rs.11,565/- and the TP is Rs.1,250/-, the total amount is Rs.2,13,969/-. The consumer offer and corporate offer by the opposite party is Rs.16,500/-. So the total amount paid by complainant as per DD Rs.1,97,469/- and total cost of vehicle is Rs.2,13,969/-. So there a reduction of Rs.16,498/- which is the special offer. It means that the insurance amount is also comes under the special offer given by the Ist opposite party. There is no receipt for the premium, produced by the complainant. It leads to a conclusion that the insurance amount is a gift or offer from the part of the Ist opposite party. But the Ist opposite party never produced any evidence to show that they have offered free insurance to the vehicle. The learned counsel for the opposite party cross examined that the insurance was a free gift. But the complainant denied the same. As per DW1, no such policy was existing at that time. The complainant renewed the policy after one year from the same 3rd opposite party. Even though they have not issued a policy as requested by the petitioner. Being a lawyer PW1, who is the husband of the complainant has got enough time to send a registered notice to the opposite party requesting the conditions, or directing the opposite party to include such a coverage in the policy. No postal receipt or acknowledgment card is produced. Only photocopy of the letter is produced. If such a policy was not issued by the 3rd opposite party, the petitioner could have changed or attained such a policy from the available insurance companies in the very next year. But she again continued the very same policy next year after remitting premium. It means that there is no difficulty caused to the petitioner because of the non-availability of such an IMT 70 policy. No claim was also raised by the complainant in the policy period. So we think that there is no deficiency seen from the part of the opposite parties.

Hence the petition dismissed and no cost is ordered against the petitioner.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of March, 2009.

Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - Tom Thomas

On the side of Opposite Parties :

DW1 - Mathew George

DW2 - Ipe George

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Vehicle booking Form No.B 802/9168 dated 10/07/2007.

Ext.P2 - Copy of Insurance application form.

Ext.P3 - Letter dated 17/07/2007 addressed to the 1st opposite party.

Ext.P4 - Copy of policy

Ext.P5 - Copy of letter dated 24/07/2007 addressed to the 3rd opposite party

Ext.P6 - Reply letter dated 3/09/2007.

Ext.P7 - Copy of Invoice dated 13/07/2007.

Ext.P8 - Copy of customer account settlement voucher dated 19/07/2007.

Ext.P9 - Copy of endorsement policy.

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Ext.R1 - Copy of Indian Motor Tariff

Ext.R2 - Copy of DD No.500484 dated 17/07/2001 for Rs.1,97,469/-

Ext.R3 - Copy of Voucher dated 17/07/2007 for Rs.1,45,000/-

Ext.R4 - Copy of Voucher dated 17/07/2007 for Rs.54,157/-