DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Friday the 28th day of April 2023
C.C.228/2020
Complainant
Devasia K.V,
S/o. Varkey,
Kalamparambil House,
Kodenchery P.O, Thamarassery Taluk,
Kozhikode-673 580.
Opposite Parties
1. The Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd,
Branch Office,
Maharani Shopping Complex,
1st Floor, Main Road, Karadi,
Thamarassery.
2. General Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd,
Regional Office,
Sharanya Hospital Road,
Ernakulam.
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
The complainant is the registered owner of KL-11-E-3150 Mahindra Jeep. He purchased it in May 1996 and insured with the United India Insurance Company Ltd and continued to renew the policy till 2018. At the time of purchase of the vehicle, the cubic capacity (CC) was not mentioned in the registration certificate and so the first opposite party made an imaginary calculation of 1563 CC and collected insurance premium at an excessive rate from the complainant. Though he often enquired about the higher rate of premium, the insurance company did not give any reply. He submitted documents showing that the cubic capacity of his vehicle is below 1500 CC and requested the first opposite party to review the premium. But no positive action was taken in this regard. For the last 22 years, the opposite parties have been collecting excessive premium. Finally he preferred a petition under Right Information Act in order to understand the criteria of calculating the insurance premium. Neither the first opposite party nor the second opposite party, which is the appellate authority, did not give satisfactory reply.
3. The complainant then changed his insurance policy to another insurance company and there he had to pay Rs.4,530/- only as premium in the year 2019 instead of the premium amount collected by the first opposite party Rs.9,702/- in the previous year. Then only the complainant came to know that the opposite parties had collected double the premium than what was actually due. On 08-09-2020 he issued a legal notice to the opposite parties to refund the excess amount collected by way of premium for the last 22 years and also calming compensation. Despite receipt of notice, no reply was sent nor did they pay any amount. Due to the inefficient and deficient services and malpractice of on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has sustained monetary loss, mental agony and hardship. They are also bound to refund the excess amount of premium collected for the last 22 years. Hence the complaint claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the from the opposite parties and also refund of the excess amount collected by way of policy premium with interest @ 18% per annum.
4. The opposite parties have filed written version denying all the allegations and claims made against them. The opposite parties have admitted the policy for the period from 19-06-2018 to 18-06-2019 for the vehicle owned by the complainant. The allegation that the first opposite party made imaginary calculation of 1563 CC to the vehicle and collected insurance premium in an excessive rate from the complainant is not fully correct. The premium was arrived at based on the correct CC of the vehicle. The actual cubic capacity of the above vehicle was confirmed from the registering authorities, after getting complaint from the complainant. As per the reply furnished by the joint RTO, Koduvally, the cubic capacity of the vehicle is 2520. No excess premium was collected as alleged. The complainant has admitted that he was paying the premium to the opposite parties for 22 years, which would show that he was satisfied with the premium collected, otherwise, he had the option to change the insurer. No document showing that the cubic capacity of vehicle is below 1500 was produced before the opposite parties as alleged. The premium was collected based on IRDA directions and actual CC of the vehicle. The opposite parties have furnished prompt reply to the questions raised by the complainant.
5. The complainant might have suppressed the actual CC of the vehicle and got insurance policy from another insurer or the terms of coverage may vary. There was no inefficiency or deficiency of service or malpractice on the part of the opposite parties. The prayer for compensation is not allowable. The opposite parties are not liable to refund the premium collected since no excess premium was collected from the complainant. The complainant has no cause of action. It is, therefore, prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
6. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
(1) Whether there was any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?
(2) Reliefs and costs.
7. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts A1 to A4 on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence was let in by the opposite parties. Exts.B1 to B5 were marked.
8. Heard both sides.
9. Point No 1: The complainant has approached this Commission claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the alleged deficiency of service and malpractices on the part of the opposite parties and the consequential mental agony, financial loss and other hardship suffered by him and also for refund of the alleged excess amount collected from him by way of policy premium.
10. The complainant is the registered owner of KL-11-E-3150 Mahindra Jeep. The said vehicle was insured with the first opposite party in the year 1996 and renewed the policy till 2018. The cubic capacity of the vehicle is not mention in the registration certificate. The case of the complainant is that the cubic capacity of vehicle was below 1500. His grievance is that the opposite parties made an imaginary calculation of 1563 CC to the vehicle and collected insurance premium at an excessive rate for nearly 22 years and the opposite parties neglected to furnish the information called for and to redress his grievance.
11. The opposite parties have denied having collected any excess premium and their case is that the premium was charged based on correct CC of the vehicle and IRDA directions. According to the opposite parties, the complainant did not produce any document showing that the cubic capacity of the vehicle is below 1500 and the communication from the joint RTO revealed that the cubic capacity of the complainant’s vehicle is 2520. The opposite parties have also denied the allegation that they neglected to furnish the information sought for by the complainant. Their definite stand is that there was no deficiency of service on their part and no loss or injury has been caused to the complainant on account of their actions/omissions and consequently they are not liable to pay any amount as compensation or as refund of the premium to the complainant.
12. In order to substantiate his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW1. PW1 has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the copy of the RC particulars of KL-11-E-3150 Mahindra Jeep, Ext A2 is the copy of the letter to the insurance company and the reply from the company, Ext A3 is the Copy of the premium document from the National Insurance Company Ltd and Ext A4 is the copy of the letter to the insurance company and reply from the company.
13. The opposite parties did not adduce any oral evidence. Ext. B1 is the copy of the letter dated 03-09-2018 issued by the complainant, Ext B2 is the copy of reply letter dated 26-09-2018 issued by the second opposite party, Ext.B3 the copy of the letter dated 10-02-2021 issued by the first opposite party under the RTI Act to RTO koduvally, Ext B4 is the reply dated 15-03-2021 issued by the RTO Koduvally and Ext B5 is the copy of the insurance policy with terms and conditions.
14. It is an admitted fact that the cubic capacity of the complainant’s vehicle is not mentioned in the registration certificate. This is further evidenced by Ext. A1 RC particulars. In Ext B5 policy issued by the first opposite party, the cubic capacity of the vehicle is shown as 1563. In Ext A3 premium document of the national insurance company, the cubic capacity of the vehicle is shown as 1500. In this context, the learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that the complainant has no definite case as to the cubic capacity of his vehicle. We find much force in the contention. The complainant has not produced any document showing the actual cubic capacity of the vehicle. Though the complainant has got a case that he is in possession of documents showing that the cubic capacity of the vehicle is less than 1500, no such document is produced before this Commission. The opposite parties have denied having received any such document from the complainant at any point of time. If there is any such document, nothing prevented the complainant from producing the same before this Commission. It is also not known as to why the complainant did not take any steps to enter the cubic capacity of the vehicle in the registration certificate. It is also pertinent to note that the complainant did not object when the cubic capacity of the vehicle was shown as 1563 in the insurance policy. In this context, it is worthwhile to have a glance at Ext.B4 information supplied by the joint RTO to the opposite parties. The Joint RTO Koduvally has clarified in Ext.B4 that the cubic capacity of the vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-11-E-3150 is 2520. Ext.B4 is issued by a competent authority and it is not assailed by the complainant. Ext B4 proves that the cubic capacity of the said vehicle is 2520. If that be so, the opposite parties calculated insurance premium taking the cubic capacity of the vehicle as 1563, which is far below the actual cubic capacity. That being the position, there is no scope for any grievance for the complainant.
15. The complainant has sought for refund of the alleged excess premium collected. There is no evidence that the opposite parties have collected the premium against the instruction/directions of the IRDA. The allegation in the complaint is that excess premium was collected for 22 years whereas the case of PW1 in the proof affidavit is that excess premium was charged for about 10 years. But the details are not furnished. The data regarding the alleged excess premium collected each year is neither disclosed in the complaint nor deposed by PW1.
16. The complainant came up only after changing the policy to another insurance company where a less premium was collected compared to the premium demanded by the opposite party. The premium paid to the opposite parties in the year 2018 was Rs.9,702/- whereas the premium paid to the new insurance company was Rs.4,530/- in the year 2019. As already stated, In Ext A3 policy document the cubic capacity of the vehicle is shown as 1500. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the opposite parties, how the said insurance company got the information that the cubic capacity of vehicle is 1500 is a mystery. If this was based on any document furnished by the complainant, nothing prevented the complainant from producing the said document either before the opposite parties or before this Commission. The IDV will be less as years go on. It is common knowledge that insurance is a competitive field. The premium will differ in each company depending on the coverage and terms and conditions. The terms and conditions of the new policy are not made available before this Commission. So the contention of the complainant that in the new insurance company, the premium was less is not a sufficient ground to hold that the premium charged by the opposite parties was excessive and against the rules. It is not proved that the opposite parties have collected excess premium in violation of the rules or the directions of IRDA. In these circumstances, no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service can be attributed against the opposite parties in the matter of insurance premium of the complainant’s vehicle.
17. The complainant has a grievance that to the information sought for by him under the Right to Information Act, no proper reply was furnished by the opposite parties. The evidence shows that all the applications under the Right Information Act were promptly replied by the opposite parties. This is evidenced by Exts.A2, A4 and B2. If the complainant has a grievance that proper reply was not furnished, it is for him to approach the competent authorities under the Right to Information Act. The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held in Revision Petition No.3146/2012 (Sanjay Kumar Mishra V/s Public Information officer) that the person seeking information under the provisions of Right to Information Act cannot be called a consumer and therefore the consumer Fora cannot entertain any complaint regarding the violation of the provisions of the Right to Information Act.
18. To sum up, we hold that there is no proof of any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and consequently the complaint must fail.
19. Point No.2: In view of the finding on the above point, the complainant is not eligible to claim and get any relief.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 28thday of April, 2023.
Date of Filing: 02-11-2020.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext A1 - Copy of the RC particulars of KL-11-E-3150 Mahindra Jeep.
Ext A2 -Copy of the letter to the insurance company and the reply from the company.
Ext A3 - Copy of the premium document from the National Insurance Company Ltd.
Ext A4 - Copy of the letter to the insurance company and reply from the company.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Ext. B1 -Copy of the letter dated 03-09-2018 issued by the complainant.
Ext B2 - Copy of reply letter dated 26-09-2018 issued by the second opposite party.
Ext.B3 - Copy of the letter dated 10-02-2021 issued by the first opposite party under the RTI Act to RTO Koduvally.
Ext B4 -Reply dated 15-03-2021 issued by the RTO Koduvally.
Ext B5 -Copy of the insurance policy with terms and conditions.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 – Devasia K.V.
Witnesses for the opposite parties
Nil
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Forwarded/ By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar.
