Kerala

StateCommission

A/16/36

C VASUMATHI - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD - Opp.Party(s)

PARTY IN PERSON

31 Mar 2017

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.36/2016

JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2017

 (Against the order in CC 204/2014 on the file of CDRF, Kannur)

PRESENT:

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR     : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SHRI. V.V. JOSE                                   : MEMBER

APPELLANTS:

1. Vasumathi. C.,

            W/o. T.K. Damodaran Nambisan,

           

2. T.K. Damodaran Nambissan,

            RE 1, 1A, ACE, Silversprings,

            Apartment, Mankav,

            Calicut – 673007.

 

            (By Adv: Sri. Radhakrishnan, Amicuscuriae)

 

                                                                                                            Vs.

 

RESPONDENT:

 

            The Branch Manager,

            Tata Motor Finance Ltd.,

            Ward No. 789, W.B.15,

            1^st floor, South Bazar,

            Kannur – 670002.

 

            (By Adv: Sri. N.U. Nampoothiri)

 

JUDGMENT

 

SHRI.V.V. JOSE        : MEMBER

 

            This appeal is filed by the complainant, dissatisfied by the order in CC 204/2014 dated 25/02/2015  in the file of CDRF, Kannur allowing the complaint directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as cost.  The appeal is for enhancement of the compensation as prayed in the complaint amounting to Rs.2,00,000/-.

            2.        The case of the complainant is as follows:

            1^st complainant was the owner of a Tata Nano Car bearing Registration No.KL 11–AQ–1778 and availed a loan from M/s. Tata Motors Finance Ltd., Kannur as 1^st complainant being the borrower and 2^nd complainant as co-borrower. As per the terms of agreement the insurance premium of the vehicle has to be paid with the monthly instalment of loan.  The first year premium was remitted along with the first instalment and second year premium was paid along with the loan repayment in 12 instalments.  But opposite party failed to renew the insurance premium from 12/02/2014 to 11/02/2015.  The said car was met with an accident on 25/01/2014 at Kozhikode and the same was informed at the City Traffic Police Station.  Insurance company rejected the claim due to the non-renewal of insurance.  The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint.

            3.        Even though notice was served on opposite party they remained absent.  Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Ext.A1 to A10 were marked. 

            4.  Complainant was heard.  The ownership of Tata Nano Car KL-11-AQ-1778 is with the complainant is admitted.  The first yearly insurance premium was paid by the complainant at the time of purchase of the car i.e. Ext.A6.  The policy certificate was issued on 12/02/2013, the period of insurance was 12/02/2013 to 11/02/2014 midnight.  Ext.A3 is the monthly loan repayment chart along with monthly insurance premium chart.  Ext. A7 is the certificate of insurance policy schedule of the National Insurance Company, which shows the renewal of policy from 28/02/2014 to 27/02/2015, which indicates that, the vehicle of the complainant was not having insurance from 11/02/2014 to 27/02/2014.  Ext. A8 prove the accident on 25/01/2014.  Ext.A9 is the claim rejection notice issued by the insurance company.  So the insurance company admitted the non renewal of insurance premium.  Ext. A1 is the copy of the standard agreement given by opposite parties.  It is described that the lender may provide an insurance payment facility to the borrower.  In such event the borrower pay the lender the amount towards insurance, which may be loaded to the instalments.  The loan and insurance repayment chart clearly shows that complainant already paid the agreed insurance premium.  Here in this case opposite party received the entire insurance premium and did not renew the policy in time is a clear deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  The vehicle is not having a valid insurance policy during the period from 12/02/2014 to 27/02/2014 which is mandatory.   It is not only deficiency of service but also it is a clear criminal offence.  As it is found as deficiency of service on the part of opposite party the lower forum directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation.  The complainant preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation.  According to the appeal memorandum the lower forum has not gone into the main issue raised and have ordered a lesser compensation of Rs.20,000/- against their prayer of Rs.20 lakhs.  

            5.        We heard both parties.  We have carefully gone through the pleadings and evidences.  The paramount problem in this case as seen from records and pleadings is in spite of an agreement to make payment of insurance premium along with the monthly instalment of loan amount by the borrower, the lender failed to renew the insurance in time.  On the other hand the lender / opposite party who was bound to renew the insurance policy on the vehicle of the complainant with effect from 11/02/2014 to 10/02/2015 failed to renew the policy in time.  It is seen from records the policy was not renewed from 11/2/2014 instead renewed only from 28/02/2014 for one year and the vehicle was not covered during a small period of 16 days.  We do agree that there was no insurance during that period.  It can be attributed as a deficiency of service.  But due to the negligence or omission on the part of opposite party has not caused any virtual inconvenience or loss or agony to the complainant at all.  It is also observed that an accident took place on 25/01/2014 during within the valid policy coverage was repudiated by the insurance company and the grievance was got redressed by the complainant through an alternate remedy.

            6.        Even though there is no direct or proximate laws which is to be compensated by an omission to renew the policy for a few days, the lower forum considering the degree of negligence directed the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.2,000/- as cost.  That order itself will take care the redressal of the entire grievances of the complainant and meet the ends of justice.  The complainant has not pleaded or proved any infirmity at all in the order of the lower forum. Complainant filed the appeal for enhancement of compensation without any basis and proof.  We do not find any merit in the appeal.  The appeal fails and hence dismissed.

            In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the order of lower forum is upheld.  No cost.

 

V.V. JOSE      : MEMBER

 

K. CHANDRADAS NADAR              : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

nb

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

 REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

 

APPEAL NO.36/2016

JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2017

 

 

                                                                                                            nb