State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Manager,Muthoot Bank,Trivandrum ... vs S.Senthil & Another,Tirunelveli. on 17 March, 2015
IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MADURAI BENCH.
Present: Thiru.A.K.. ANNAMALAI, M.A. M.L., M.Phil., Presiding Judicial Member
F.A.No.46/2012
(F.A.No.710/2010 on the file of State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Chennai)
(Against the order in C.C.No.50/2007, dated 15.03.2010 on the file of DCDRF,
Tirunelveli)
TUESDAY, THE 17th DAY OF MARCH 2015.
1. The Manager,
Muthoot Bank,
Muthoot Finance Corporation Ltd.,
Bata Shop Upstairs,
Murugankurichi,
Trivandrum Road,
Palayamkottai. Appellant/2nd Opposite Party
Vs
1. S. Senthil,
S/o. Palani,
L-161- Pothigai Nagar,
Tirunelveli. 1st Respondent/Complainant
2. The Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Company,
XL 3599 IV Floor,
Elizabeth Alexandar Buildings,
Shanmugam Road,
Marine Drive,
Cochin - 682 031. 2nd Respondent/1st Opposite Party
For appellants/2nd opposite party : Mr.G. Sridharan, Advocate.
For 1st respondent/complainant : Mr.S. Bharathi, Advocate.
For 2nd Respondent/1st opposite party: Served called absent.
2
This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 10.03.2015 and on
hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this
Commission made the following:
ORDER
Thiru. A.K. ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. The 2nd opposite party is the appellant.
2. The complainant had taken a mediclaim policy for Rs.45,000/- from the 1st opposite party on payment of premium of Rs.633/- per month through the 2nd opposite party being the agency for the 1st opposite party on 29.05.2006 and having received the amount by the 2nd opposite party on the assurance of issuing the policy within two weeks from 29.05.2006 and the policy was not delivered to the complainant as promised. In the mean while, on 15.11.2006 the complainant met with an accident near Palayamkottai Anna Stadium and sustained grievous injuries and for want of mediclaim policy he could not avail treatment from the private hospital and availed treatment only in Government hospital which caused disfigure in his face due to inadequacy of qualified doctors in the hospital which caused mental agony and sufferings and thereby on 12.03.2007 caused a registered notice to the 2nd opposite party for which no reply was received and thereby a consumer complaint came to be filed claiming for payment of Rs.45,000/- being the policy amount and Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and for costs.
3
3. The 1st opposite party in its version contended that there was no contract between the complainant and the 1st opposite party and the 2nd opposite party has not given any proposal or the premium amount to the 1st opposite party and the dispute only between the complainant and the 2nd opposite party and the 1st opposite party being an unnecessary party and the complainant already claimed accident benefit before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Tirunelveli.
4. The 2nd opposite party in its version having admitted the receipt of Rs.716/- on 29.05.2006 towards the payment of premium and service charges and the policy was already received by the complainant and the 2 nd opposite party was not aware of the accident to the complainant and being the insurance company, the 1st opposite party alone is liable and the complainant failed to prove that he had taken steps to receive the policy and thereby no deficiency in service on their part.
5. On the basis of both sides' materials and after an enquiry, the District Forum accepting the contention of the complainant allowed the complaint against the 2nd opposite party alone and directed the 2nd opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.45,000/- being the mediclaim policy amount and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony due to deficiency in service caused to the complainant and Rs.5000/- as costs and dismissed the complaint as against the 1st opposite party.
4
5. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the 2nd opposite party has come forward with this appeal contending that the District Forum erroneously allowed the complaint against the 2nd opposite party in stead of 1st opposite party and the amount received by the 2nd opposite party was remitted to the 1st opposite party and the policy produced by the complainant under Ex A4 would show that he had already received the policy and the complainant had not taken any steps to obtain the policy from the 1st opposite party after remitting, for six months till he met with an accident. Further, the award of the District Forum to pay the policy amount along with Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as costs are all not supported with any material evidence and thereby the appeal to be allowed.
6. Both sides have submitted their written arguments and the same along with other materials placed before this Bench carefully perused. It is the admitted case of both sides that the complainant had paid Rs.716/- towards premium amount of Rs.633/- including service charges to the 2nd opposite party being the agency for the 1st opposite party insurance company for availing of mediclaim policy on 29.05.2006 and subsequently till he met with an accident on 15.11.2006 the policy was not received by the complainant. It is also admitted by the 2nd opposite party that the complainant had not taken steps till he met with an accident on 15.11.2006 for more than six months would itself reveal that the policy was not received by the complainant. The 2nd opposite party even though filed a copy of the agreement made between the 1st opposite 5 party and the 2nd opposite party relating to the agency which is not in dispute when the 2nd opposite party received the policy amount including the premium amount and the service charges under Ex A1 receipt dated 29.05.2006 towards mediclaim policy for the period of one year from 29.05.2006 and the same was not received by the complainant. On perusal of the policy filed on the side of the complainant under Ex A4 would reveal it is for the period of insurance from 05.03.2007 to 04.03.2008 and the proposal and declaration dated as 05.03.2007 under Ex A4 shows that the policy related only for the year 2007-2008 and the complainant said to have been met with an accident only on 15.11.2006 and if really the policy was not issued for the period from 2006 he could not have been forced to take treatment at the Government Hospital and the accident was not disputed by the 1st opposite party and contended that the complainant had already approached the Motors Accident Claim Tribunal Fast Track Court No.1, Tirunelveli in M.C.O.P.No.221/2007 for the injuries sustained by him in the road accident on 15.11.2006 and thereby it is clear that the complainant had not received the benefits of mediclaim policy even though he had paid premium for the period through the 2nd opposite party and the 2nd opposite party in the grounds of appeal contended that they have sent money to the 1st opposite party having evidence in the form of statement of accounts remitted the premium soon after receipt of the same sent to the 1st opposite party but they have not produced the same even before this Bench as additional evidence and even though the 2nd opposite party being the agent of the principal 1st opposite party, 6 have collected premium for the issuance of policy which was not materialized because of the lapse on the part of the 2nd opposite party vicariously the 1st opposite party being the insurance company is also held to be liable. But the District Forum find fault only with the 2nd opposite party by dismissing the complaint against the 1st opposite party and in those circumstances when the complainant has not come forward with any appeal for the same to make the 1 st opposite party also liable, this Bench has no option except to accept the findings of the District Forum that the 2nd opposite party alone is liable and thereby this Bench finds no error or infirmity in the findings regarding the liability of the 2nd opposite party/appellant to pay the policy amount of Rrs.45,000/- and as far as the award of compensation of Rs.50,000/- is concerned since the 2nd opposite party being the agency only making liaison between the insurance company 1st opposite party and the insured/policy holders thereby we are of the view that the award of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony is somewhat on the higher side which could be reduced justifiably and to the extent of Rs.10,000/- and to that extent alone the appeal to be allowed.
7. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by modifying the order of the District Forum by reducing the compensation for mental agony from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.10,000/- only payable to the complainant and in other respects the order of the District Forum is confirmed. No order as to costs in this appeal. 7
Directions shall be complied within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/-xxxxxxx A.K. ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER INDEX: YES / NO TCM/Mdu Bench/Orders- March 2015