BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN                                             : PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                                       : MEMBER

SRI. VIJU V.R                                                           : MEMBER

C.C. No. 514/2014 Filed on 29/12/2014

ORDER DATED: 01/04/2022

The order delivered on 01/04/2022.

ORDER

SRI. VIJU V.R : MEMBER

The complainant has presented this complaint before this Commission under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The facts of the case is that the complainant purchased a Hyundai xcent car from 1^st opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.6,51,400 as on-road price including insurance amount of Rs.15,474 also.  But only the cover note of the insurance policy of the 2^nd opposite party company along with the records of the vehicle was given to the complainant by the 1^st opposite party.  It was told that the company executive will deliver the policy certificate within two weeks.  But till date the certificate has not been given to the complainant.  Even though the complainant contacted both the opposite parties none of them has not given the complainant the policy certificate.  The complainant send a legal notice for which also there was no response from the side both opposite parties.  Due to this the complainant was not able to ply his vehicle on roads.  The complainant has suffered irreparable hardship and distress due to the act of the opposite parties 1 &2.  The act of opposite parties 1 & 2 amounts to unfair trade practice & deficiency in service, hence this complainant.

The Opposite parties 1 &2 entered appearance and filed version.  1^st opposite party has averred that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party as defined under the Consumer Protection Act.  The averment that the 1^st opposite party has agreed that the company executive will entrust the insurance policy certificate within two weeks at the residence of the complainant is false.  What was conveyed to the complainant and agreed was that the complainant will collect the insurance policy certificate after two weeks from the office of the opposite party.  The vehicle can be used on roads with the covering note of the insurance policy for short time.  A brand new vehicle can run on roads only with a valid insurance.  The insurance certificate can be obtained either from the insurance office or even from internet.  In fact if the complainant have contacted the office of the 1^st opposite party he could have collected it after two weeks.  The amount paid for the insurance amount has been actually paid and the complainant has used the car during the period of one year from the date of delivery of the vehicle.  Since the complainant has not contacted the 1^st opposite party for collecting the insurance policy, at last the 1^st opposite party has send it to the complainant.  There is absolutely no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of 1^st opposite party.  Hence complaint may be dismissed with compensatory costs to 1^st opposite party.

Opposite party 2 has took the contention that the complaint is not maintainable either on law or on facts.  The 2^nd opposite party is an unnecessary party to the proceedings.  No claim or relief is sough against 2^nd opposite party.  2^nd opposite party is made a party in this case without any specific pleadings.   It is the bounden duty of the 1^st opposite party to issue policy certificate to the complainant as opposite party 2 had given portal facility to the 1^st opposite party.  The absolute responsibility lies with the 1^st opposite party as the privities of contract are between the 1^st opposite party and the complainant.  The complainant never demanded to the opposite party 2 to issue policy certificate.  The policy ought to have issued by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant is now infructous.  The complainant has suppressed all these facts and filed this complaint vexatiously and without any bonafides.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party 2, hence complaint may be dismissed with compensatory costs to the 2^nd opposite party.

Issues to be ascertained:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties 1 & 2?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?

Issues (i) and (ii):- Both these issues were considered together for the sake of convenience.  The complainant has filed affidavit in-lieu of chief examination and was examined as PW1 and has produced 7 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P7.  Opposite party 1 has not filed affidavit in-lieu of chief examination, hence evidence of 1^st opposite party was closed.  Opposite party 2 has filed affidavit in-lieu of chief examination.  But they have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence.  The complainant  & 2^nd opposite party filed argument note.

  It can be seen from Ext P4 that opposite party1 has collected Rs.15474/- from the complainant for the insurance & issued Ext P3.  The main contention raised by the complainant is that neither the dealer nor the insurance company has given him the insurance policy.  Opposite party 1 has not produced any evidence to prove that they have given insurance policy to the complainant.  However opposite party 1 has given Ext P3 to the complainant issued by opposite party 2.  As per IMT (Indian Motor Tariff) cover note is valid for a period of 60 days and it is mandatory for opposite party 2 to issue insurance policy within this period to the complainant.  In this case the complainant was not given the insurance policy either by the dealer (opposite party 1) or by the insurance company (opposite party 2). This act on the part of opposite party 1&2 amounts to violation of protection of policy holder’s interest regulations of IRDA.  Opposite party 2 has taken the contention that absolute responsibility lies with opposite party 1 as the privity of contract was between 1^st opposite party and the complainant.  Since opposite party 1 is the MISP (motor insurance service provider) dealer of opposite party 2, opposite party 2 is also vicariously liable for the act done by opposite party 1.  Hence we find that the complainant has succeeded in proving his case and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2. Hence the opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant.

                         The complainant’s prayer for directing opposite parties 1 &2 to issue policy of year 2014 is discarded as it has become in fructuous.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs.20, 000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and pay Rs.2500/-(Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred) towards the cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount except cost carries interest @ 9% per annum from the date of default till realization.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements is 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 1^st   day of April,  2022.    

                                                                                                                              Sd/-

                                                                                                                     PRESIDENT              

C.C.No.514/2014

APPENDIX

I           COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

II          COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

III         OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                                    NIL

IV        OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

            NIL

          Sd/-

PRESIDENT (I/C)