PER MR.H.K.BHAISE, HON’BLE MEMBER

1)                The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  According to the complainant, insurance policy of his car was going to expire on 30^th May, 2012.  Therefore, he renewed it by paying premium amount by cheque.  He received cover note on 30^th May, 2012 from the opponent.  The policy period was to start from 31^st May, 2012.  His car met with an accident on 3^rd June, 2012 therefore he informed about the accident to the opponent.  After receiving information, the opponent refused to renew the policy.  The opponent has not satisfied the claim of the complainant therefore he has filed this complaint to direct the opponent to issue policy commencing from 31^st May, 2012 and to pay insurance claim to the complainant.  He has also claimed compensation of Rs.1 Lakhs for mental harassment and cost of litigation of Rs.50,000/-.

2)                The opponent appeared and filed written statement.  It is submitted that the complainant submitted claim on 7^th June, 2012 on the basis of the cover note dated 30^th May, 2012.  After receiving claim, the matter was investigated and it was found that cover note was issued by it to the Agent on 30^th May, 2012 at 01.45 P.M.  The first cover note was issued by the Agent on 30^th May, 2012 at 04.00 P.M. and the second cover note was issued by the Agent on 4^th June, 2012. The papers were submitted to the opponent on 13^th June, 2012. There was difference in time of effect of the policy. Therefore, the complainant was informed by letter dated 28^th June, 2012 that that the insurance company is not liable to satisfy the claim.  The premium amount was returned to the complainant on 13^th September, 2012.  As there was no policy in existence, the complainant is not entitled for any relief.

3)                After hearing both the parties following points arise for our consideration.

POINTS

REASONS

4) As to Point No.1 & 2 :- There is no dispute that earlier policy period was upto 30^th May, 2012.  It is also not disputed that for renewal of policy, cheque for premium amount was given and cover note was issued on 30^th May, 2012 w.e.f. 31^st May, 2012.  According to the opponent, there was difference in time of effect of the policy.  There is no dispute about the date of effect of policy.  The dispute is about the time of effect.  The alleged accident took place on 3^rd June, 2012.  The effect of policy was from 31^st May, 2012. Therefore, time of effect of policy is not material as the accident took place three days after the effect of policy.  In the written statement, the opponent has stated about the mistake of Agent in writing time of the effect of the policy.  It is the dispute in between Agent and the opponent. The complainant has already paid premium amount by cheque which was accepted by the opponent and cover note was issued therefore it was necessary for the opponent to inform the complainant immediately. The effect of policy starts as soon as premium amount was accepted and cover note was issued.  If there is any dispute in between opponent and its Agent, the complainant should not be suffered.  Therefore, canceling the policy after insurance claim amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the opponent.

5)                In the prayer, the complainant has prayed for policy w.e.f. 31^st May, 2012.  Today, it is 9^th October, 2014.  The vehicle policy is only for one year.  Therefore, the prayer for issuance of policy w.e.f. 31^st May, 2012 became infructuous.  Even though, this prayer became infructuous still the complainant is entitled for the insurance claim as the accident took place during the force of policy.  Therefore it is necessary to see whether accident took place and the complainant suffered accidental damage.

6)                According to the complainant, he informed about the accident to the opponent.  If there was accident, there must be police complaint/F.I.R., Spot Panchanama, Vehicle Panchanama. The complainant has not explained in his complaint or in his evidence as to whether there was police complaint and the police made investigation about the accident.  The complainant has not produced any police investigation papers. The claim of the complainant was already rejected by the opponent vide letter dated 12^th November, 2012.  The complaint is filed on 20^th September, 2013.  The complainant has not explained as to whether his vehicle was repaired or whether he incurred expenses for the repairs of vehicle.  He has not quantified his claim in his complaint.  It appears that the complainant wants to claim insurance claim as per IDV which is Rs.8,49,898/-. Under the policy, the insured is entitled for reimbursement of the expenses and not the IDV.  IDV is for the purpose of maximum limit of reimbursement. Therefore, the complainant can not claim the insurance claim as per IDV.  He can claim reimbursement for the expenses incurred by him upto to the limit of IDV i.e. Rs.8,49,898/-.  The complainant has not lead any evidence about the expenses incurred by him for the repair of his vehicle.  There is absolutely no pleading or evidence about the expenses incurred by him.  As the complaint is filed for recovery of claim, burden lies on the complainant to prove the expenses incurred by him.  In the absence of pleading as well as evidence, the complainant is not entitled to recover any claim from the opponent.  It appears that the complainant is not properly guided while filing the complaint and leading the evidence.  Unless there is specific claim by the complainant, we can not allow it.  

7)                The complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.1 Lakh for mental harassment and cost of litigation of Rs.50,000/-. As discussed above, there was unfair trade practice on the part of the opponent.  In spite of receiving premium amount and issuing cover note, the opponent has refused to renew the policy thereby the complainant suffered from mental agony.  We think as there was mistake of the opponent, the opponent should pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for mental agony.  Besides this, the complainant is entitled for cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/-. 

ORDER

1. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. The opponent is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten Thousand Only) to the complainant as compensation towards mental agony.
3. The opponent is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand Only) to the complaint as cost of litigation.
4. The above order shall be complied with within a period of one month from today.
5. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.

Pronounced on 9^th October, 2014