BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SRI.  P.V. JAYARAJAN                               : PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                           : MEMBER

SRI. VIJU  V.R.                                             : MEMBER

C.C.No. 324/2015  Filed on 14/07/2015

ORDER DATED: 19/11/2021

ORDER

SRI.P.V. JAYARAJAN, PRESIDENT:

1. This is a complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the matter stood over to this date for consideration.  After hearing the matter the commission passed an order as follows:
2. The case of the complaint is that the complainant availed a vehicle loan from the opposite parties for purchase of a vehicle.  As per the agreement, except for the first year, the insurance premium of Rs.12,600/- for the subsequent 36 months is to be paid along with the EMI.  According to the complainant the EMI is Rs.4050/- only.  So, by adding Rs.350/- to that EMI, he has to pay Rs.4,400/-  The complainant’s case is that as there was a vehicle test by the department, the complainant approached the Opposite Party for the insurance document, but they told that as there is two installment due, only after paying the dues they can  give the insurance papers.  Hence the complainant took another insurance policy but the Opposite Parties are continued the collecting of insurance premium also along with the EMI, even after the complainant took another insurance policy.  The dispute is with regard to the claim for deduction of the insurance amount collected through EMI subsequent to the purchase of a new policy by the complainant, which was rejected by the opposite parties.  Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant approached this Commission for redressing his grievances.  The opposite parties entered appearance and filed version denying the allegation of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice raised by the complainant against the opposite parties.  The Opposite Parties contented that they have no knowledge about the insurance policy taken by the complainant and also denied that the complainant has requested for refund of the policy premium and Opposite Parties rejected the same. According to the opposite parties the insurance policy of the complainant’s vehicle was renewed by them every year till the period 13-09-2014 to 12-09-2014 and the renewed policy were delivered to the complainant.  The Opposite Parties further contented that since the Oppposite Parties renewed the policy as per the agreed terms, the complainant is not entitled to get any refund.    The Opposite Parties submitted that as they have acted only in accordance with the terms of the agreement, there is no deficiency in service and Evidence in this case consists of PW1, Ext.P1 & P2 on the side of the unfair trade practice on their part and hence the complaint is to be dismissed.
3. Complainant. The Opposite Parties not adduced any oral or documentary evidence.
4. Points to be considered.

     1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

     2) Whether the complainant is entitle for the relief claimed?

     3) Order as to cost?

5.  Heard.  Perused the records.  To establish the case of the complainant, the complainant himself was examined as PW1 and Ext.P1 and P2 produced and marked on behalf of the complainant.  Though sufficient opportunities were given to the opposite parties, they have not cross examined the complainant.  Ext.P1 is the copy of retail invoice dated 12/09/2012.  Ext.P2 is the copy of repayment schedule dated 13/09/2012.  The opposite parties filed version denying the allegation.  But they failed to cross examine the complainant.   The complainant’s evidence was closed on 17-01-2018 and since then the case was adjourned for the evidence of the Opposite Parties.  The opposite parties have also not availed the opportunities given to them for filling affidavit and documents.   Mere denial of the allegations by the Opposite parties without adducing any supporting evidence to substantiate their contentions, is not sufficient to disprove the complainant’s case   It is also pertinent to  note that the Opposite Parties were neither present nor represented since 22-03-2018.   As such, the evidence adduced by the complainant stands unchallenged.  There is no contra evidence from the side of the opposite parties.   We find that by giving evidence by PW1 through affidavit and by producing Ext.P1 and P2 document, the complainant has succeeded in establishing his case, in the absence of any contra evidence from the side of the opposite parties.  The complainant also pleaded and proved that he has suffered financial loss. In view of the above discussion and in the absence of any contra evidence, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties by which the complainant has suffered financial loss.
6. In the result the complaint is partly allowed.   The Opposite Parties are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation along with Rs.1,000/- towards the cost of this proceedings to the complainant  within thirty days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount except cost shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of default till the date of remittance/realization.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 19^th  day of November,  2021.

C.C. No. 324/2015

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                                                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                                                   PRESIDENT