Assam

Dibrugarh

CC/25/2015

SRI MANOJ DEKA - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SRI TARUN CHANDRA DUTTA

26 Sep 2017

ORDER

The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant  on 06-04-15 went to the office of the OP No.1 and handed over a cheque bearing No.756620 dated 06.04.15 with a view to renew his Car Insurance Policy No.13030131114P100231197 which was to be expired on 07-04-15. On the next day the complainant again went to office of the OP No.1 to collect the  renewal policy but OP No.1 replied that  the policy was not ready. So, the complainant requested OP No.1 to give a money receipt but OP No.1 refused the same by saying that the money receipt was not generated. Thereafter, when the complainant went to collect his policy on 20-04-15 the OP No.1 Mr. Mahesh Kundu returned the cheque on 20-04-15 asking him to pay cash because they are barred to receive cheque for third party insurance. The complainant as such, requested the OP to show any such rule if any existed, but the OP replied that they cannot show each and every rule and asked the complainant to get the rules by filing RTI application, if required. As such, the complainant on 21.04.15 paid Rs.2000/- cash but the OP was to return Rs.36/- being premium of Rs.1964/- whereas, the Company returned only Rs.30/- and did not return Rs.6/- taking plea of having no change and also not issued any money receipt. The complainant thereafter, filed an application for RTI on 21.04.15 asking to  provide copy of rules/regulations which enables the OP to refuse cheque as insurance premium and also asked the reason U/s 4(1) (d) of RTI Act, 2005 for not accepting insurance premium by cheque. In reply to the RTI the OP stated that as per their internal instruction given by higher authority, premium specially in case of motor third party proposal should be paid either in cash or draft by the proposer concern with a view to avoid cheque dishonour. Whereas, Government of India Department of Finance insisting for more and more cheque transaction. By not accepting the cheque the OP had committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant has  suffered a lot for not accepting the cheque for thirteen days and had to keep his vehicle standstill for without having insurance for which the complainant is entitled compensation in terms of money. The act of the OPs were out and out deficiency in service due to their omission and non acceptance of the cheque for which the complainant suffered immense loss, torture and harassment. Hence, the complainant filed this case with prayer to pay compensation for financial loss he suffered, direct the OP to accept the cheque and also to make arrangement to provide proper receipt against cash or cheque in time of tendering the insurance premium. Further prayed to return Rs.6/- paid in cash and cost of the litigation.

 

      After registering the case notices were issued  to all the OPs to which they have submitted their written statement stating inter-alia that the case is not maintainable in law as well as in fact. The OP stated that the complainant never came to the office of the OP No.1 on 06.04.15. The complainant came to the OP No.1 on 20.04.15 and offered a cheque for the premium of third party liability of the policy of the car No.AS-06-F/5735. But the OP No.1 insisted for cash payment for the premium. The complainant thereafter, threatened the Branch Manager i.e. OP No.1 of filing RTI application if he do not accept the cheque. In fact the complainant did not pay the cash premium on 20.04.15. He left the office on that day and came back on 21.04.15 and tendered Rs.2000/- for his premium due of Rs.1964/- through his agent Rajkumar Kakati who returned Rs.36/- to the complainant and also asked the complainant to receive the receipt on the next day. The OPs denies that the Insurance coverage remain out of payment for  thirteen days for negligence of the Insurance Company. The complainant paid the premium only on 21.04.15 for which the complainant himself is responsible for not paying the premium for fresh period for expiry of the policy on 07-0415. The OPs are not at all responsible for remaining his car without insurance coverage after expiry of the policy. Further, it is stated that OP No.1 never asked the complainant to file RTI application. It was rather the complainant who threatened the OP No.1 to file RTI application if the cheque tendered by him on 20-04-15 is not accepted. It is submitted  by the OP that the complaint filed by the complainant  is not maintainable as the complainant has failed to make out any consumer dispute or deficiency in service on the part of OPs. As such, they prayed to dismiss the case against the OPs.

 

       In this case complainant gave evidence by searing affidavit and exhibited as many as 11 (eleven) documents in support of his case. On the other  hand, the OPs have examined three witnesses and  submitted two documents to rebut the case of the complainant. Both the parties submitted their written argument.

 

 

DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF :

 

Upon going through the evidence of both the parties and their documents it is found that complainant on 06-04-15 went to the office of the OP No.1 with a view to renew his Car Insurance Policy to be expired on 07-04-15. The complainant issued a cheque in favour of the United India Insurance Company Limited bearing No.756620 dated 06-04-15 for an amount of Rs.1964/- to the OP No-1. While tendering the cheque by the complainant the OP neither issued any receipt nor the renewal policy. On the next day while the complainant went to the office of the OP No-1, OP No-1 informed him that the policy was not ready. So the complainant insisted for issuing receipt  but the OP refused to issue the receipt by saying that the money receipt was not generated. The complainant again on 20-04-15 went to the office of the OP No-1 to collect the policy but he did not receipt the renewal policy, he was anger with Mr. Mahesh Kunka for not providing the policy and money receipt. So the OP No.1 with vindictive mood returned the cheque to the complainant by saying that cheque cannot be accepted for third party liability and complainant was forced to pay cash for renewal of the policy and policy was issued on 22-04-15. In this way the complainant alleged that thirteen days elapsed for which he could not use his car and faced a helplessness situation. 

 

    On the other hand, the OP alleged that the complainant did not come to the office of the OP No.1 on 06-04-15, he came on 20-04-15 and offered a cheque for the premium of third party liability. As such, the OP No.1 insisted the complainant to pay the cash since their higher authority instructed them not to accept cheque for third party liability in order to avoid the cheque dishonour. As such, the complainant was insisted to pay cash. Accordingly, the complainant on 21-04-15 tendered Rs.2000/- for premium of Rs.1964/- and thereafter, Rs.36/- was duly returned  to the complainant. The OP alleged that the complainant came after lapse of thirteen days to renew his policy and as such, the OPs are not at all responsible for remaining his car without insurance coverage after expiry of the policy. Further, it is alleged that  the OP never asked the complainant to file RTI application, rather complainant threatened the OP No.1 to file RTI application if the cheque tendered by him on 20-04-15 is not  accepted. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

 

   So far visiting by the complainant on 06-04-15 to the office of the OP No.1 is concerned, it is found that there is no any such evidence to prove that the complainant visited to the office of the OP No.1 on 06-04-15 except Ext-D the Cheque No.756620 dated 06-04-15. According to the complainant as he visited to the office of the OP No.1 on 06-04-15 he tendered the above cheque for his premium due Rs.1964/- because his policy was to be expired on 07-04-15. On the other hand, the OPs also have no such  documentary proof that the complainant visited to the office of the OP No.1 on 20-04-15 except oral evidence. Considering the above fact and circumstances documentary evidence far more  valuable and authentic than the oral evidence. The complainant at least submitted a documentary evidence of Cheque No.756620 dated 06-04-2015 which he tendered on the day of visit by the complainant. The above documentary evidence is sufficient to prove that the complainant visited to the office of the OP No-1. Further, it is also accepted that the complainant tendered the above cheque on 06-04-15 as because his policy was to expire on 07-04-15. Accordingly, it is obvious that the complainant visited on 06-04-15 to the office of the OP No-1. Whereas, OP No.1 failed to issue the receipt as well as renewal policy on the pretext that the money receipt was not generated.  Had the OP No.1 issued the receipt as soon as the premium was paid either by cash or cheque, which is the rule, the matter would have been clear on which date the premium was paid but in absence of the receipt we must accept that the complainant went to OP No.1 on 06-04-15 which is an authentic document. The OPs have failed to rebut the evidence of the complainant for which visiting of the complainant to the office of the OP No.1 on 20-04-15 has been failed and their submission is rejected.

 

     So far the denial of accepting the cheque of the premium of third party liability is concerned, the OP alleged that on 20.04.15 the complainant offered a cheque for premium of third party liability and insisted the complainant to pay in cash for which the complainant threatened the Branch Manager i.e. OP No.1 of filing R.T.I. application if he does not accept the cheque. The complainant did not pay the cash premium on 20.04.15 and left office and came on 21.04.15 paid the currency of Rs.2000/- for the premium of Rs.1964/- and the OP duly returned him Rs.36/-.The ground for refusing to accept the cheque was that their higher authority instructed them not to accept motor third party proposal by cheque and to accept either by cash or draft just to avoid the dishonour of cheque. It is to be mentioned here that it is a misleading information and deceptive trade practice towards the consumer. The manner in which the cheque was returned was not justified. It is evident that the OPs knowingly refused to provide a mandatory insurance service to the complainant even after issuance of the cheque.  The OP by refusing to accept the cheque has violated the IRDA notification. The OPs are duty bound to accept the cheque as per the notification even though it is a third party liability. As per IRDA notification F No.IRDA/REG.10/2002 which stated that cheque is to be accepted as insurance premium. As such, there is no obligation to deny the cheque as insurance premium for third party liability. It is a settled law that a cheque, unless dishonour is a payment. In the said rule it has specifically mentioned that - the policy stands cancelled or void in the event of dishonour of the cheque. Whereas, in the instant case though the cheque was tendered on 06-04-15 but the cheque was not presented in the Bank to dishonour the same and the OPs with some vindictive motive returned the cheque to the complainant on 20-04-15 and forced him to tender cash. Under the circumstances, complainant was forced to pay his premium by cash as because he cannot ply his vehicle without insurance. Hence, the plea of refusing cheque by OPs have failed.

 

       Apart from these it is to be mentioned here that though for the argument sake the complainant tendered cash money to the OP No.1 on 20-04-15 the OP neither issued money receipt nor cover note on the same day. Though policy was not issued but at least the OP had to issue money receipt which is mandatory  as per provision of the law and accordingly OP failed to prove that the complainant visited to OP on 20-04-15. The complainant visited on 06-04-15 to OP No.1 as stated by complainant and failed to use his vehicle for the lashes  on the part of the OP. Had the money receipt been issued  instead of cover note the complainant could have plied the vehicle for which the complainant had to suffer inconvenience, hardship, disappointment, frustration.

 

 

       After considering the above fact and circumstances, we are of the view that OP did not discharge their duty as per IRDA instruction. There are no dispute that the complainant visited to the office of the OP No-1 to avail insurance service and offered insurance premium in time in the form of cheque. It was the OP who did not issue the policy neglecting the provisions of M.V. Act and IRDA notification and compelled the complainant to come back with cash and to pay cash but even after paying the cash the OP did  not issue receipt which is arbitrary act, carelessness conduct and  dereliction of duties towards mandatory provision of the insurance policy. There is no any such guideline from the part of IRDA not to provide third party insurance policy premium by cheque. As such, the OP is acting contrary to law. The OPs did not adhere the statutory provision of law for which the complainant was affected. Apart from these a senior authority who has given verbal instruction or written instruction not to accept cheque for fear of dishonour of cheque is the violation of

 

the statutory provision of law. The complainant by adducing evidence and by supporting document has disclosed sufficient material of committing serious negligence, deficiency in service and illegal trade practice by neglecting the complainant and not rendering service to the consumer and also by violating the  general and statutory law. The OPs  should have receive the cheque as insurance premium and had to render service  to the complainant. But the OPs did not comply the service and thereby  neglected their duties. The instructions not to accept cheque for third party insurance liability from the part of their senior official has no legality as it is not a direction of the IRDA rather, it is a verbal instruction of some official without having legal sanction. The complainant had to face the undesired situation for no fault of his part and had to loss money, valuable time, futile RTI process had to be adopted by the complainant requesting guideline, instruction etc which are also went on vain and also not received any proper reply. The OPs miserably failed to retract the evidence of the complainant and to produce any such effective evidence by documentary or by producing any copy of such legitimate rule etc. rather, OPs have misguided the complainant by various letter stating that there are instruction from higher authority to deny the cheque. So this  came to the conclusion that the complainant has filed the case rightly and considering the fact and evidence disclosed that OPs have failed to impair the evidence of PW-1 and his documents.

In view of the conclusion arrived at by this Forum it has been disclosed that the OPs committed deficiency in service and illegal trade practice by not accepting the cheque and also not issuing the receipt on the date on which it was tendered for which, the complainant had to suffer mental harassment and agony as the vehicle could not be used for thirteen days for no fault of him. Therefore, this Forum directs the OPs to make arrangement to receive cash or cheque at the time of tendering insurance premium as per direction of IRDA. The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for giving such mental harassment and agony to the complainant by not accepting the cheque and insisting him for tendering cash. The Forum further direct OPs to pay Rs.3000/- as cost of filing the instant case. The OPs are directed to pay the above amount through this Forum within a month from the date of this judgment.

Send copy of this judgment to OPs for compliance.