Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/189/2021

T. Ravi Kumar Advocate - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India insurance company - Opp.Party(s)

T. Ravi Kumar

07 Jun 2023

ORDER

  Date of Complaint Filed:10.11.2021

  Date of Reservation     :23.05.2023

  Date of Order              :07.06.2023

          DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                             : PRESIDENT

                    THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,             :  MEMBER  I 

                   THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,       : MEMBER II

               

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.189/2021

WEDNESDAY,THE 7^th DAY OF JUNE 2023

T Ravi Kumar,

Advocate,

Madras Consumer Courts Bar Association,

V O C Nagar,

TNPSC Road,

Chennai – 600 003.                                                        .. Complainant.

 

-Vs-

United India Insurance company Ltd,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

24, Whites Road,

Chennai – 600 014.                                                       .. Opposite Party.

* * * * *

 

Counsel for the Complainant    : M/s. T. Ravi Kumar

 

Counsel for Opposite Party       : M/s. S. Dhakshnamoorthy

 

On perusal of records and upon hearing the oral arguments of the counsel for Complainant and the counsel for the Opposite Party this Commission delivered the following:

 

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru. T.R. Sivakumhar., B.A., B.L.,

(i)     The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and prays to refund the difference of Rs.326/- and to give third party risk to Hero Electric Vehicle for 5 years and to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- for the mental agony and hardship caused to the Complainant.

I.  The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

1.     The Complainant Purchased 2 Battery Operated 2 wheelers, namely  Amphere Reo (lead acid) (250 W) on 26.08.2019 and Hero Electric (Lithium Ion)  (250W) on 10.01.2020, and had taken insurance with the Opposite Party’s Rajapalayam Branch and Thambu Chetty Street Branch, bearing Policy Nos.0909013119P115169127 and 0101012619P114506435, respectively.

2.     The Complainant submits that in so far as Battery Operated Vehicles are concerned they are insured based on the wattage of the Batteries on the vehicle. In the present case both the vehicles have a capacity of 250 w. However the different branches of the same Insurance company have charged the Complainant differently, his Amphere Reo vehicle was insured on a premium of Rs.1929/- with Third party risk cover for 5 years and his Hero Electric Vehicle was insured on a premium of Rs.2255/- with all risks covered for 1 year only.

3.     The Complainant submits that such kind of discriminatory pricing is a restricted trade practice and Unfair trade practice as defined in Consumer Protection Act. The Complainant sent a letter to the Customer Grievance officer of the Opposite Party company and Insurance Regulatory Development authority of India on 23.07.2020. This was followed with a letter dated04.01.2021 to the Grievance department of the Opposite Party. Till date the Complainant has not received any reply and hence the complaint is filed for redress.

4.     The Complainant submits that, he had to incur an extra amount of Rs.326/ for the vehicle insured at Chennai and also forego the benefit of third party risks for 5 years.This tactics of differential pricing for a similar product amounts to restrictive trade practice and Unfair Trade Practice by the opposite parties Hence the complaint.

II. Written Version filed by the Opposite Party in brief is as follows:

5. The complaint is frivolous, vexatious and is abuse of the Consumer Protection Act, based upon the baseless allegations. The complaint is not bona fide and thus does not disclose any materials fact.

6.     The Complainant insured his Electric Two wheeler under two different kind of policies.

i) For the Vehicle namely Amphere Reo, he has taken a Motor Insurance Policy vide Policy No. 09090131192115169127 for the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of Rs.43,225/-. This policy covers the risk of the "Own Damage" to the Vehicle for 1 year and "Liability risk towards Third party as envisaged in Motor Vehicles act for 5 years effective from 24.02.2020.

ii) For the vehicle namely Hero Electric E-Bike, the Complainant has not taken a Motor Insurance Policy but a Special Contingency Policy for a sum Insured of Rs.52,041/-. The Special Contingency policy was issued for the period of 1 year from 10.02.2020 to 09.02.2021 vide policy no 0101012619P114506435.

7.     The type of insurance policy and its coverage is entirely different and distinct for these two vehicles. Even the sum Insured for both the policies are different. It is pertinent to state that the type of insurance product required, is purely the choice of the person who proposes to take insurance. Hence the allegations of the Complainant is devoid of any merits.

8.     The Opposite Party submits that there is no mandatory registration of the Electric Motor vehicle were the Electric power does not exceed 0.25 KW (ie, 250 W). The Complainant would be well aware that Compulsory Motor Third Party Insurance is not mandated to these type of two wheelers as per the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, it is purely within the wisdom of the Complainant to chose the type of coverage required by him. The Complainant cannot claim ignorance of the provisions of Law.

9.     When insurance is purely based on the choice of the person proposing to take insurance and after taking two distinct type of policy coverages, the Complainant with ulterior motive has filed this present complaint which is nothing less than abuse of process of law.

10.    The Complainant's comparison of difference in premium for the two distinct Insurance policy by itself is erroneous.

11.    Hence, there is no cause of action for the complaint. The various reliefs sought are not sustainable and maintainable.

12.    It is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs in the interest of justice.

 III. The Complainant has filed his proof affidavit, in support of his claim in the complaint and has filed 8 documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to A8. The Opposite Party had submitted its proof affidavit. No document was marked on its side. Written argument of Complainant and Opposite Party filed.

IV. Points for Consideration:-

 

1. Whether the act of the Opposite Party amounts to restrictive Trade practice and Unfair trade Practice?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed in the complaint and for what other relief/s?

POINT NO. 1 :-

13.    It is an undisputed fact that the Complainant had availed Insurance Policies for his two battery vehicles, namely, Amphere Reo and Hero Electric from the Opposite Party, one at Rajapalayam Branch and another at Thambu Chetty Street Branch, Chennai.

14.    The Contentions of the Complainant are that the Opposite Party had failed to issue similar policies to both of his battery vehicles,i.e., his battery vehicle Amphere Reo was covered with third party liability for 5 years, whereas his battery vehicle Hero Electric was covered with all risks for only 1 year, further he had paid additional premium of Rs.326/- for his Hero Electric bike. Further contended that the Opposite Party had tried to justify its restrictive trade practice and unfair trade practice, though the highest grievance authority of the Opposite Party had been addressed, no reply was sent by them which itself amounts to deficiency of service. Further contended he never chose the policy and it was the Opposite Party by themselves had issued two different polices, realising the mistake done by the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party had renewed the policy and issued Motor Vehicle Policy for his Hero Electric vehicle, even that policy contains Third party Coverage for one year only. His main issue was that the clarifications sought by him with regard to the Correct rate/premium and the Correct policy type and clauses, was not replied by the Opposite Party.

15.    The Contentions of the Opposite Party are that the Complainant had insured his Electric Two wheelers under two different kind of policies, ie., for his Vehicle Amphere Reo, he has taken a Motor Insurance Policy vide Policy No. 09090131192115169127 for the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of Rs.43,225/-. This policy covers the risk of the "Own Damage" to the Vehicle for 1 year and "Liability risk towards Third party as envisaged in Motor Vehicles act for 5 years effective from 24.02.2020, and for his vehicle Hero Electric E-Bike, he has not taken a Motor Insurance Policy but a Special Contingency Policy for a sum Insured of Rs.52,041/-. The Special Contingency policy was issued for the period of 1 year from 10.02.2020 to 09.02.2021 vide policy no 0101012619P114506435. Further, the type of insurance policy and its coverage is entirely different and distinct for these two vehicles. Even the sum Insured for both the policies are different.

16.    Further contended that the type of insurance product required, is purely the choice of the person who proposes to take insurance. Hence the allegations of the Complainant is devoid of any merits.

17.    Further contended that there is no mandatory registration of the Electric Motor vehicle where the Electric power does not exceed 0.25 KW (ie, 250 W), and the Complainant would be well aware that Compulsory Motor Third Party Insurance is not mandated to these type of two wheelers as per the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, it is purely within the wisdom of the Complainant to chose the type of coverage required by him. The Complainant cannot claim ignorance of the provisions of Law.

18.    On discussions made above and on perusal of records, from Ex.A-3 Motor Vehicle Insurance Policy for Amphere Reo Battery vehicle of the Complainant, issued by the Opposite Party’s Rajapalayam Branch, it is seen that the Policy covers own damage for one year and third party damage for 5 years, further it is seen that the Insured’s Declared Value was mentioned as Rs.42,335/- and paid a total premium of Rs.1929/- including GST. From Ex.A-4 Special Contingency Policy for Hero Electric vehicle of the Complainant, issued by the Opposite Party, it is seen that the Policy covers for one year with special conditions and the cover was mentioned as Others, further it is seen that the Insured’s Declared Value was mentioned as Rs.52,041/- and paid a total premium of Rs.2255/- including GST. Ex.A-5 is the Letter dated 23.07.2020 sent to Insurance Regulatory Development Authority and to Customer Grievance officer of the Opposite Party, explaining about the policies issued for his similar kind of vehicles and sought for clarifications regarding Correct rate of the policy and the correct kind of policy and clauses. Ex.A-6 is the Reminder Letter dated 04.01.2021 sent to Grievance Department of the Opposite Party, referring Ex.A-6 and sought for reply to the same.

19.    It is to be noted from Ex.A-7 Mail dated 31.01.2020 sent to the Opposite Party, the Complainant had requested to issue an insurance policy for his battery vehicle, namely, hero electric vehicle attached with relevant invoice and mentioned that the said vehicle does not require Registration or require driving license to drive. It is seen from Mail dated 13.02.2020 at 10.55 am sent by the Opposite Party explaining about the policy of Special Contingency Policy which is combination of covers bundled to suit the needs of the insured rather than being a standard policy for the electric vehicle of the Complainant and it is also mentioned that the Mail dated 03.02.2020 sent along with the Invoice has been accepted as proposal form of the Complainant and further sought for to confirm whether the same has to be sent with their acknowledgement. Further it is seen from Mail dated 13.02.2020 sent by the Complainant, he had acknowledged the receipt of the Policy from the Opposite Party and had sought for proposal form in both soft and hard copy from the Opposite Party, which was replied by the Opposite Party.

20.    Ex.A-8 is the Motor Vehicle Insurance Policy issued by the Opposite Party for Hero Electric Vehicle of the Complainant with a coverage of Own damage for one year for the period from 10.02.2022 to 09.02.2023, on renewal of the earlier policy issued under Special Contingency cover.

21.    On the given circumstances and facts of the case, it is clear the Insurance Policy for Hero Electric vehicle of the Complainant was issued based on the explanations given by the Complainant with regard to the model and features of the said vehicle, who had specifically mentioned about Registration and Driving License are not required for the said vehicle, taking note of the details provided by the Complainant the Opposite Party had issued Special Contingency Insurance Policy suiting the need of the Complainant and hence the contentions of the Complainant he was not issued a motor insurance policy as issued by the Opposite Party’s Rajapalayam branch for his another battery/electric vehicle is not legally sustainable, as the Complainant had failed to prove that in spite of his request for issuance of Motor Vehicle insurance as issued by the Other branch of the Opposite Party, a different policy was issued by the Opposite Party, as no protest or denial made by the Complainant in issuance of Special Contingency Policy, Ex.A-4, in the mails Ex.A-7 sent by the Complainant, wherein he had sought for the Proposal Form alone, which has been suitably replied by the Opposite Party vide their mail dated 13.02.2020. Further the Complainant had pleaded that non reply by the Opposite Party for the clarifications sought for by him under Ex.A-5 and A-6, amounts to deficiency of service, is not legally sustainable, as the Opposite Party after issuance of the subject Insurance Policy had sent a Mail dated 13.02.2020 Ex.A-7 wherein it was clearly mentioned that the Mail dated 03.02.2020 sent by the Complainant along with the Invoice has been accepted as proposal form, which Mail dated 03.02.2020 has not been produced by the Complainant before this Commission, and claiming for difference in the premium for similar vehicle charged by the two different branches of the Opposite Party, namely, United India Insurance Company Ltd, as well as exact policies was not issued to similar vehicles of the Complainant, is not legally acceptable, as rightly pointed out by the Counsel for Opposite Party that both the Policy are different, the one that was issued by Rajapalayam Branch was Motor Vehicle Insurance Policy and the other that was issued by the Opposite Party was special contingency policy and further as it was specifically mentioned by the Complainant in his mail that his vehicle to be insured does not require Registration or Driving License the policy that suits the Complainant’s need was issued to the Complainant. Further the contention of the Complainant that having realised the mistake of Special Contingency Policy issued earlier for his Hero Electric vehicle and on renewal had issued a Motor Vehicle Policy for only one year, Ex.A-8, is not acceptable, as pointed by the Opposite Party that only on the choice of the Customers the policies are issued and as such Ex.A-8 was issued by the Opposite Party. Hence, the act of the Opposite Party does not attract any restrictive trade practice, unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. Therefore, this Commission is of the considered view that there is no restrictive trade practice, unfair trade practice and deficiency of service committed by the Opposite Party. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

POINTS NO 2 :-

22.    As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint and hence not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly Point No.2 is answered.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

 

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 7^th June 2023.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                         MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	26.08.2019	Invoice for Amphere Reo
Ex.A2	10.01.2020	Invoice for Her Electric
Ex.A3	24.02.2020	Insurance Policy for Amphere Reo
Ex.A4	24.02.2020	Insurance Policy for Hero Electric
Ex.A5	23.07.2020	Letter to IRDA and Grievance Officer
Ex.A6	04.01.2021	Letter to Grievance Department
Ex.A7		Email correspondences
Ex.A8		Insurance policy for the 2022-2023

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

​

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                          MEMBER I                            PRESIDENT