Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The Complainant has come up with this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with his grievance that he had purchased a tractor by getting a loan from the Canara Bank, Sindaghatta Branch, Pandavapura Taluk and Bank itself had insured the vehicle with respondent Company commencing from 26.10.2005 till 25.12.2006, as the insurance policy was about to terminate on 25.10.2006, he insured the tractor with the Opposite party by way of renewal from 26.10.2006 to 25.10.2007 by paying a premium of Rs.7,196/-. Later he came to know that the Canara Bank itself got the insurance renewed from the United India Insurance Co.Ltd., by paying a premium of Rs.7,000/- with effect from 26.10.2006 till 25.10.2007. Then he approached the Opposite party, briefed it about the insurance and requested it to refund the amount paid by him, as it was not necessary for insuring the vehicle twice. The Opposite party who promised to refund the amount after deducting Rs.50/- as service charges despite lapse of lot of time has not refunded. Again when he approached the Opposite party on 05.03.2007 they issued him a cheque for Rs.5,385/-. Whereas the Opposite party had informed him that they only deduct Rs.50/- as service charges and pay the remaining amount, but they have not done so. Therefore, has prayed for ordering for of refund of the balance amount of Rs.1,761/-, cost of this complaint Rs.1,000/- and Rs.8,000/- for having kept the tractor idle during the period of his approach of the Opposite party, totaling to Rs.10,761/.<br /> 2. The Opposite party was served with the notice of this complaint has remained absent and is placed exparte. <br /> 3. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence reiterating the contents of the complaint and has prayed for the relief as prayed for.<br /> 4. The complainant has produced copy of the R.C. book and copy of the Insurance Policy obtained from the Opposite party on the 1st occasion and also copy of the insurance policy obtained by Canara Bank from United India Insurance Co.Ltd., renewing the policy from 26.10.2006 till 25.10.2007. He has also produced copy of the insurance policy he had taken subsequently from Opposite party. The affidavit evidence of the complainant, and documents we have referred to clearly reveal that the tractor whose insurance was got renewed by the Canara Bank with United India Insurance Co.Ltd., On 12.09.2006 is again got insured by the complainant with the Opposite party company by paying a premium on 25.10.2006. Therefore, it is evident that the same has lead to obtain two insurance policies for the same period, which is unwarranted.<br /> 5. The complainant has also produced a Xerox copy of the cheque issued by the Opposite party for Rs.5,385/-. All the facts and materials found on record go in confirmative with the claim of the complainant. The complainant has contended when he approached the Opposite party for refund of the amount, the officials of the Opposite party had told him that they will refund the amount by deducting Rs.50/- towards service charges. The Opposite party though had opportunity to appear and defend the complaint has not chosen to do so. We are also not finding any material on record, which authorizes the Opposite party to withhold a sum of Rs.1,761/- out of the premium amount paid by the complainant i.e. Rs.7,146/-. No doubt, the Opposite party may be entitled for deducting certain amount towards service charges etc.,. But it has not come before this Forum to justify the deduction of that amount. Therefore, the complainant case that the Opposite party had told him that they will deduct Rs.50/- towards service charges since had not been denied has to be accepted. Therefore, we find that the Opposite party by not substantiating it’s right of deducting a sum of Rs.1,761/- has caused deficiency in not returning the balance amount. The complainant in his complaint has claimed Rs.8,000/- as loss for having kept the tractor idle during the period, when he approached the Opposite party, but that has not been proved by acceptable evidence as such in the absence of proof as to the number of approaches he made with the Opposite party, the time required for doing so and actual loss he suffered. The complainant cannot be given the relief of Rs.8,000/- towards loss. However, the complaint deserves to be allowed in part and therefore we pass the following order:-<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is allowed in part.<br /> 2. The Opposite party is directed to refund the balance amount of Rs.1,761/- to the complainant within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which that amount shall carry interest at 12% p.a. from the date of this order till the payment.<br /> 3. The Opposite party shall also pay cost of Rs.500/- being the cost of this complaint. <br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br />