Consumer Complaint No. 56 of 2011
Date of filing: 28.4.2011 Date of disposal: 21.4.2017
Complainant: Hasahnur Zaman k., S/o. Azizur Rahaman, Vill. & PO: Bandhmura, PS: Katwa, District: Burdwan, PIN - 713 150.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: 1. The Officer-in-Charge, Reliance Geneal Insurance Co. Ltd., 19, Reliance Centre, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001.
2. The Officer-in-Charge, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Durgapur Branch, Galaxy, 2nd Floor, Sahid Khudiram Sarani, City Centre, Durgapur – 16.
3. The Officer-in-Charge, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Keshabganj Chati, Market Complex, PS. & District: Burdwan. (Expunged)
Present: Hon’ble President: Sri Asoke Kumar Mandal.
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Tamal De.
Appeared for the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2: Ld. Advocate, Subhajit Mondal.
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service, as well as, unfair trade practice against the Ops as the Ops have wrongly mentioned the commencement of the policy and expiry of the same in the policy copy, for which the complainant had to suffer mental shock agony and harassment.
The brief fact of the case of the complainant is that being an owner of a passenger carrying bus, the complainant obtained an insurance policy from the Ops by making payment of Rs. 18,422=00 in cash towards premium for the said policy. According to the complainant the said policy was valid for the period from 14.3.2011 to 13.3.2012 as per cover note. The cover note of the policy being No. 110001398012 was supplied to him mentioning the above dates as commencement and expiry. The OP-2 provided the certificate of the aforesaid insurance policy to the complainant on 26.3.2011 being No. 1509702340000146 in respect of the above-mentioned cover note mentioning for the period from 19.3.2011 to 18.3.2012 which is totally contrary to the cover note as given to him at the time of issuing the policy. According to the complainant such action of the OP-2&3 can be termed as unfair trade practice. Due to such deficient service the complainant had to suffer mental shock as the insured vehicle make an accident on 16.3.2011 after depositing the premium amount on 13.3.2011, but having receipt of the policy certificate the complainant became puzzled as he found the effective date of the insurance policy has been written wrongly in the said policy copy. Then and there he sent legal noticed to the OP-1&2 through his ld. Advocate on 28.3.2011 mentioning such anomaly, but the Ops being reluctant did not spent any single work in this regard inspite of several requests. Having no other alternative to resolve such dispute, the complainant has approached before this ld. Forum against such unfair and deficient service of the Ops praying for direction upon the Ops to pay him a sum of Rs. 4, 00,000=00 as compensation due to mental pain, agony and harassment and other reliefs.
This complaint was filed before this ld. Forum on 28.4.2011. After its admission notices were issued upon the Ops but inspite of receipt of notices the Ops did not appear before this ld. Forum. Subsequently the name of the OP-3 had been expunged from the cause title of the complaint in connection with the prayer made by the complainant. As the complainant had adduced evidence this ld., Forum was pleased to fix the complaint for hearing on 19.02.2013. Thereafter date was fixed for delivery of judgment and accordingly the judgment was passed by this ld. Forum on 27.02.2013 whereby the complaint was allowed ex parte and the OP-1&2 were directed jointly to make payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 4, 00,000=00 within 45 days from the date of this order, in default, the claimant was entitled to get interest @9% per annum till realization. The Op-1&2 were also directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000=00 to the Consumer Welfare Fund, Burdwan for their unfair trade practices positively within 45 days, in default; necessary order will be passed in accordance with the law.
Being aggrieved with the said order dated 27.02.2013 the OP-1&2 have preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble SCDRC, WB which was registered therein as First Appeal No. FA/61/2014. The Hon’ble SCDRC, WB has been pleased to pass the judgment in the said Appeal on 15.11.2016 whereby the Appeal was allowed on contest and the case has been remanded back to this ld. Forum below for fresh adjudication by giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties, who may adduce their respective evidence, if any. The impugned order was set aside, no cost imposed. Parties were directed by the Hon’ble SCDRC, WB to appear before this ld. Forum on 29.12.2016 for necessary orders.
On 29.12.2016 ld. Advocates for the parties were appeared. The ld. Counsel for the Ops has prayed time for filing written version. The prayer was allowed. 30.01.2017 was fixed for filing written version by the Ops. On 30.01.2017 one petition was filed on behalf of the OP-1&2 pryaing fixing another date for filing written version. On repeated calls as the OP-1&2 were not appeared and the petition not moved, hence it was held by this ld. Forum that the ground mentioned in the petition is not sufficient and accordingly the petition filed by the Ops was rejected. Date was fixed for adducing evidence by the parties on 22.02.2017. On 22.02.2017 none was appeared on behalf of the Ops and further date was given for adducing evidence by the parties fixing on 15.3.2017. On 15.3.2017 the complainant had adduced evidence on affidavit and photocopy of a document as per list. On behalf of the Ops written version along with a petition was filed praying to accept the same. For acceptance hearing was made. On scrutiny of record it is appeared by passing an order this Forum was pleased to fix the date for ex parte hearing rejecting the prayer of the Ops to file written version and subsequently this Forum was pleased to pass ex parte order. Being dissatisfied with the same the Ops moved before the Hon’ble SCDRC, WB and the Hon’ble SCDRC, WB by passing the last order dated 15.11.2016 in the FA /61/2014 has been pleased to sent the case back on remand for fresh adjudication by giving opportunity of hearing both the parties who may adduce their respective evidence, if any. By this order dated 15.11.2016 the Hon’be SCDRC, WB has been pleased to give an opportunity to the Ops to file written version. Moreover such order was passed by the Hon’ble SCDRC, WB on 15.11.2016 and thereafter within the stipulated period the Ops could not file their written version. So at this stage the written version filed by the Ops should not be accepted and this ld. Forum was pleased to hold that the petition and the written version filed by the Ops are rejected. Date was fixed for hearing argument on 19.4.2017. On 19.4.2017 the complainant has filed brief notes of argument. As the Ops were absent on calls, hence copy could not be served upon them. The ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that as the complainant has filed brief notes of argument, hence he is not interested to advance any argument orally. Being satisfied and convinced with such submission of the ld. Counsel for the complainant, this ld. Forum was pleased to fix the date for delivery of judgment.
We have carefully perused the petition of complaint and other related documents as available in the record and gone through the brief notes of argument filed by the complainant. It is seen by us that the complainant being the owner of a passenger carrying bus obtained an insurance policy from the Ops covering the risk of the said vehicle after making payment of due premium amount to the tune of Rs. 18,422=00. The dispute of the complainant is very simple i.e. as to whether the Ops have mentioned the date of commencement of the policy and its expiry in the policy certificate wrongly or not. It is submitted in the petition of complaint that the policy was valid from the period from 14.3.2011 to 13.3.2012. The further case of the complainant is that within the validity of the said policy the insured vehicle met an accident on 16.3.2011. The complainant received the policy certificate on 26.3.2011 and after perusing the same he became perplexed because the commencement of the policy and its expiry were written wrongly in the certificate as for the period from 19.3.2011 to 18.3.2012. Only such simple point lies for adjudication that whether the above-mentioned dates were wrongly written or not. We have gone through the documents as filed by the complainant. We have got the date as 14.3.2011 and 13.3.2012 but the said two dates are mentioned in the proposal-cum-cover note. In the said document it is printed that this cover note is valid only for 60 days from the date of issue and is not valid without engine and chassis no. and registration no. It is further mentioned therein that in the event of dishonour of cheques insurance cover provided vide this cover note automatically stands cancelled from inception irrespective of whether separate communication is sent or not. The Ops have issued the policy certificate after putting their seal therein. The certificate shows the period of insurance for the period from 19.3.2011 to 18.3.2012. As the date of commencement and expiry of the policy was mentioned in the cover note as 14.3.2011 to 13.3.2012, the said date is not convincing to us because thereafter the complainant got the policy certificate from where it is evident that policy was valid for the period from 19.3.2011 to 18.3.2012. Though in the petition of complaint the complainant has stated that upon receipt of the said policy certificate the complainant through his ld. Advocate approached before the OP-1&2 by issuing legal notice but to no effect, but in this respect no documentary evidence has been adduced by the complainant to prove that after receipt of the policy certificate the complainant approached before the OP-1&2 by making written correspondences for rectification of the policy period in the certificate of the policy. As the certificate of the policy has come to the picture, hence the proposal form has lost its value. Therefore in our view the complainant has failed to prove his case by adducing cogent evidence that actually the policy was valid for the period from 14.3.2011 to 13.3.2012, because the policy certificate reveals the date as 19.3.2011 to 18.3.2012. Moreover, no averment is available along with documentary evidence as to on which date the complainant paid the premium amount to the Ops for such policy. As is it mentioned in the cover note that the proposal form is valid for 60 days, hence the date mentioned in the proposal form cannot be taken into consideration the inception of the policy because the intending purchaser is at liberty to deposit the due premium within 60 days from the date of submitting the filled up proposal form before the OP. As the picture is not clear in the case in hand we are constrained to hold that the averment as made out in the complaint is true, though no rebuttal case is forthcoming on behalf of the Ops. As the complainant has failed to prove the complaint, hence we are of the opinion that he is not entitled to get any relief as sought for.
Going by the foregoing discussion, hence it is
O r d e r e d
that the complaint is dismissed ex parte against the OP-1&2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case there is no order as to costs.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
(Asoke Kumar Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
