Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/65/2017

Sri.Ravikumar S/o Rudrappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,Policy Servicing Office - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.Thippeswamy.N

25 Aug 2018

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON :17/06/2017

               DISPOSED ON:25/08/2018

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA

 

CC. NO. 65/2017 DATED:25th AUGUST 2018

 

PRESENT :-     SRI.T.N.SREENIVASAIAH :      PRESIDENT                             B.A., LL.B.,

                        SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI:

BSc.,MBA., DHA.,                LADY MEMBER

                                   

COMPLAINANT/S

Ravikumar S/o Rudrappa Age: 52 Years, Transport Business, R/o Chikkabyaladakere village, Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District.   (Rep by Smt/Sri.Thippeswamy, Advocate)

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. The Manager, Policy Servicing office, TATA AIG GIC LTD., A-6, 6th Floor Trade World, Compound Kamal Mills, Senapathi Batpat Marg, Lower Panel, Mumbai.   2. The Manager, Registered office, TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., Penusella Business, Park Tower A 15th Floor, G.K. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-13.   3. The Branch Manager, TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., VK Kalburgi Hall Mark Building, III Floor, Desai Cross, Hubli, Karnataka.   4. The Branch Manager, Branch Office, Bellad Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Near Karnataka Petrol Bunk, B.D. Road, Chitradurga.   5. The Manager, TATA Motors Finance Ltd., Building A, 2nd Floor, Lodhal-Think, Techno Campus Off, Pokharan Road-2, Thane (West) 400607.(Deleted)   6. The Divisional Manager, ICICI Lombard GIC, Head Office, ICICI Lombard, House 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Sidhi Vinayaka Temple, Prabhadevi Mumbi. Represented by its Divisional Manager, ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd., Double Road, Bellary. (Deleted)   (Rep by Smt/Sri.G.C,  Advocate for OP No.1 to 3 and Sri.SNC for OP No.4)

 

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH: PRESIDENT

ORDER

 

The complainant has been filed this complaint U/s 12 of C.P. Act 1986 against the opposite parties to direct the OPs to pay Rs.14,81,881/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a and to grant such other reliefs.

2.     Brief facts of the complaint is that, the complainant is the RC owner of Tata Ace Goods vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-16 C-3650, Engine No. 275IDI06EUYS48006 and chassis No.MAT445064FVF15312, which was purchased from OP No.4 under the financial assistance of OP No.5.  The complainant has purchased the above vehicle to eke out his livelihood and the entire family is depending on the earnings of the said vehicle.  Firstly, the complainant was having insurance policy from ICICI Bank valid for the period up to 26.07.2016.  After that, the complainant has obtained the policy from the OP No.1 and 2 and the same was valid for the period from 26.07.2016 to 26.07.2017 by paying premium amount of Rs.21,881/-.  After receiving the premium amount from the complainant, the OP No.1 and 2 have send the policy to the complainant.  After receiving the policy from the OPs, the complainant verified the chassis and engine number mentioned in the policy and noticed that, the OP No.1 and 2 have wrongly mentioned the chassis and engine number in the policy.  Immediately, the complainant has intimated the same to OP No.1 and 2, but they have not set right the mistake found in the policy.  In the meanwhile, the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident in his village.  By that time, he entered into with a compromise with the victim and paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the victim because of wrong mentioning of the chassis and engine number in the policy.  The complainant again requested the OP No.1 and 2 and explained everything to the OP No.1 and 2 and requested to rectify the mistake found in the policy.  But they have not taken any care.  Finally, the complainant has issued legal notice to the OP No.1 to 4 for rectification of the mistake but they have not rectified.  Due to the said impact, the complainant has not run the vehicle on the road and kept the same as idle in the shed from August 2016 till today.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 26.07.2017 when the OP has issued the policy to the complainant which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum and hence, prayed for allow the complaint.

  3.   After issuance of the notice to the OPs, OP No.1 to 3 appeared through Sri. G.C, Advocate and filed their version.  One Sri. SNC, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP No.4 and 5 and Sri. B.M. Ravichandra, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP No.6.  Subsequently, the complainant has filed a memo praying for dismissal of the complaint against OP No.5 and 6, therefore as per the memo this Forum ordered to delete OP No.5 and 6.  The objections of OP No.1 to 3 may be treated as objections of OP No.4. 

According to the version filed by OPs is that, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.  The OP No.1 to 3 submits that, the company has received a consolidated cheque from the said broker which included an amount of Rs.21,881/- as the premium amount for issue of commercial motor policy in favour of the complainant for the said vehicle.  The amount received for commercial motor policy bearing No.0156060227 dated 28.06.2016 was issued in favour of the complainant for the said vehicle for a period from 27.07.2016 to 26.07.2017.  The said vehicle was insured with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company under policy bearing No.30003/-00270709/00/000 for a period from 27.07.2015 to 26.07.2016.  The engine and chassis Number in the said policy was 275IDI06BUYS15358 and MAT 445064FZB06801.  The said policy was issued on the basis of details provided by the broker and the said ICICI policy, as the same was provided by the complainant pertaining to the said vehicle.  The OP No.1 and 2 have sent the policy to the complainant on 11.07.2016.  After receiving the policy by the complainant, the complainant was not filed any request application before the OP to rectify the mistake as found in the policy.  The complainant has send the legal notice to the OP No.1 to 4, the OP No.1 to 4 have send reply to the Advocate for the complainant, by that time also, the complainant never intimated that there is a mistake in the policy issued by the OPs.  The mistake is committed by the broker only, but not the OPs and therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4. Complainant himself examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and relied on documents Ex A-1 to     A-10 and closed his side.  OP No.1 to 3 have examined one Sri. Sunil Khichar, Deputy Vice-President-Secretarial and Legal Manager of OP No.1 to 3 and relied on Ex.B-1 to B-8 and closed their side. 

5. Heard the arguments.

6.     Now the Points that arise for our consideration for the decision of the complaint are that:-

Point No.1:-Whether the complainant proves that, the OP No.1 to 4 have wrongly mentioned the chassis and engine number in the policy and due to that, the complainant has kept his vehicle idle in a shed without running on the road and committed deficiency in service and entitled for the reliefs as prayed in the complaint?

 

Point No.2:- What order?

 

        7. Our findings on the above points are asfollows.

        Point No.1:-Partly Affirmative.

        Point No.2:- As per the final order.

::REASONS::

 

8. Point No. 1:-It is not in dispute that, the the complainant is the RC owner of Tata Ace Goods vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-16 C-3650, Engine No.275IDI06EUYS48006 and chassis No.MAT445064FVF15312, the same has been purchased by obtaining loan from OP No.5 under the financial assistance of OP No.5.  After purchasing the same, the complainant has obtained the policy from ICICI Lombard Insurance Company for the period up to 26.06.2016.  After that, the complainant has obtained the policy from OP No.1 and 2 for the period from 26.07.2016 to 26.07.2017 by paying premium amount of Rs.21,881/-.  The OP No.1 and 2 have received the premium amount from the complainant and sent the policy to the complainant.  By that time, the OP No.1 and 2 have wrongly mentioned the engine and chassis number.  After that, the complainant has intimated the same to the OP No.1 and 2 to rectify the same but they have not done so.  In the meanwhile, the vehicle met with an accident near the village of complainant.  By that time, the complainant ended the matter with compromise with the victim by paying an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-.  The complainant has furnished all the necessary documents to the OP No.1 and 2 to rectify the same, but the OPs have not rectified the mistake found in the policy.  Due to that, the complainant has not run the vehicle on the road and kept the said vehicle as idle in a shed in the month of August 2016 till today.  Further the complainant has stated that, he was earning Rs.2,000/- per day from the said vehicle, the entire family was depending upon the earnings of said vehicle.  The complainant has purchased the said vehicle for his livelihood.  The OP has taken a contention that the complainant has purchased the same for commercial purpose and hence, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.  Further they have taken a contention that, the broker has submitted the details of the vehicle.  On the basis of the details submitted by the broker, the OP No.1 and 2 have issued the policy.  Here the case on hand is that, after issuance of the policy, the complainant has intimated about the mistake mentioned in the policy to the OP No.1 and 2.  After receiving the notice, the OPs have not come forward to rectify the mistake mentioned in the policy, it is purely a negligence on the part of OP No.1 to 4.  The complainant has approached the OP No.4 so many times but, the OP No.4 told the complainant to approach OP No.1 and 2 for rectification of the mistake found in the policy.  After that the complainant has issued the legal notice to the OP No.1 to 4 requesting them to rectify the mistake found in the policy.  But they have not done so till today, it is purely negligence on the part of OP No.1 to 4 and there is a deficiency in service.  Hence, the OP No.1 to 4 have committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. 

 

9.     We have gone through the entire documents filed by both the parties, it clearly shows that, the complainant is the RC owner of Tata Ace Goods vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-16 C-3650 with engine No.27510106EUYS48006 and chassis No.MAT445064FVF15312 and the same has been purchased by obtaining loan from the OP No.5.  The complainant has obtained the insurance policy from ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company for the year 2015-2016.  In the said policy, the above said policy the engine number mentioned above was entered.  Again the complainant has obtained the policy from OP No.1 and 2, the same was commencing from 27.07.2016 to 26.07.2017 but, in this policy, the OPs have wrongly mentioned the engine number and chassis number.  After receiving the policy, the complainant has verified the same and intimated the OPs about wrong mentioning of chassis and engine numbers.  But the OPs have not come forward to rectify the same.  In the meanwhile, the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident in his village and one person was victim.  Because of wring mentioning of chassis and engine number, the complainant ended the matter with compromise by giving an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the victim as compensation.  After that the complainant has intimated the same to the OP No.1 and 2 and requested them to rectify the same but, they have not done so.  Finally, the complainant has issued legal notice to the OPs No.1 to 4.  By that time, they have replied the same and told the complainant that, they have issued the policy on the basis of report or information submitted by the broker.  Here the case on hand is that, after the mistake found in the policy by the complainant, the complainant has intimated the same to the OP No.1 to 4 to rectify the same.  By that time also, the OP No.1 to 4 have neglected to rectify the same, it is purely a negligence/mistake and deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 to 4.  The complainant has produced the RC book to the OP No.1 and 2 and the same has been marked as EX.A-2.  In this RC book, it clearly mentioned the chassis and engine number but the OP says that, it is not possible to see but, the copy produced by the complainant is visible one.  The OP No.1 to 4 says that, on the basis of information furnished by the broker, they have supplied the policy to the complainant. But the documents furnished by the broker clearly shows that, the engine number and chassis number of the complainant’s vehicle is correct when obtaining the policy from ICICI.  The contention taken by the OPs in their version, affidavit, written arguments and oral arguments before this Forum is not acceptable and not sustainable under law.  The OP No.1 to 4 have failed to settle the claim.  Because of wrong mentioning of chassis number and engine number, the complainant has kept his vehicle as idle since from August 2016.  According to the complainant, he was earning Rs.2,000/- per day from the said vehicle.  But this Forum has taken income of Rs.500/- per day from the said vehicle.  Accordingly, the OP No.1 to 4 are liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,63,000/- along with interest.  The exhibits produced by the OPs clearly shows that, the policy number and chassis number are different from the policy issued by the ICICI.  The main mistake committed by the OP No.1 and 2 is by wrong mention of chassis and engine number and after receiving the complaint from the complainant, the OP No.1 and 2 have neglected to rectify the same, it is clearly negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP 1 to 4.  Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 held as affirmative. 

10.   Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein, we pass the following:

 

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is hereby partly allowed.

It is ordered that the OP No. 1 to 4 are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,63,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a from August 2016 till realization and also ordered to return the premium amount of Rs.21,881/- to the complainant.

It is further ordered that, the OP No. 1 to 4 are hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant. 

It is further ordered that, the OP No. 1 to 4 are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

 

 

(This order is made with the consent of Lady Member after the correction of the draft on 25/08/2018 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signature)

 

 

 

 

 

LADY MEMBER                                       PRESIDENT

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainants:

PW-1:-Complainant by filing affidavit evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1:- Sri. Sunil Khichar, Deputy Vice-President-Secretarial and Legal Manager by filing affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	2 photos
02	Ex-A-2:-	Certificate of insurance
03	Ex-A-3:-	RC
04	Ex.A-4:-	B-Register Extract
05	Ex.A-5:-	Customer information card of Axis Bank
06	Ex.A-6:-	Legal notice dated 27.05.2017
07	Ex.A-7:-	5 postal receipts
08	EX.A-8:-	3 postal acknowledgements
09	Ex.A-9:-	Returned postal cover
10	Ex.A-10:-	Certificate cum policy schedule

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Letter dated 20.06.2016 to complainant by OP No.1
02	Ex-B-2:-	Certificate of insurance
03	Ex-B-3:-	Important Notes
04	Ex.B-4:-	Letter dated 20.06.2016 by the OP to complainant
05	Ex.B-5:-	Certificate cum policy schedule
06	Ex.B-6:-	List of policy holders
07	Ex.B-7:-	Letter dated 06.06.2017 to complainant by the OP
08	Ex.B-8:-	Mail copy of India Post

 

LADY MEMBER                               PRESIDENT

Rhr.