National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. M.L. Spinners Pvt. Ltd. vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. on 18 February, 2020
Author: R.K. Agrawal
Bench: R.K. Agrawal
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 239 OF 2011 (Against the Order dated 16/11/2010 in Appeal No. 2642/2006 of the State Commission Haryana) 1. M/S. M.L. SPINNERS PVT. LTD. Village Nagar, Tehsil Ghohana Sonepat Haryana ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. Br. Office, Gohana Sonepat Haryana 2. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Divisional Office Sonepat Haryana ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL,PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. DINESH SINGH,MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Rajiv Jaiswal, Advocate
Dated : 18 Feb 2020 ORDER
ORDER
HON'BLE MR. DINESH SINGH, MEMBER
1. This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', challenging the Order dated 16.11.2010 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission', in F.A. No. 2642 of 2006 arising out of the Order dated 24.08.2006 in C.C. No. 142 of 2005 passed by The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat, hereinafter referred to as the 'District Forum'.
The Petitioner herein, M/s M.L. Spinners Private Limited, through its Director, was the Complainant before the District Forum, and is hereinafter being referred to as the 'Complainant Firm'.
The Respondents herein, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., were the Opposite Parties before the District Forum, and are hereinafter being referred to as the 'Insurance Co.'.
2. We heard the learned Counsel for the Complainant Firm and the Insurance Co., and perused the material on record including inter alia the Order dated 24.08.2006 of the District Forum, the impugned Order dated 16.11.2010 of the State Commission and the Memorandum of Petition.
3. The brief facts of the case have been succinctly articulated by the State Commission in the first three paragraphs (unnumbered) of its Order of 16.11.2010, and are reproduced below:
The brief facts of the present case as can be gathered from the record are that the respondent (complainant) had got insured his unit with the appellants-opposite parties for the year 2003-2004 @ Rs. 2.25 per thousand having value of Rs. 4,94,35,000/- vide cover note No. 065859 w.e.f. 2.3.2003 to 1.3.2004 for which premium of Rs. 1,57,018/- was paid which included the risk of building and machinery. The opposite parties charged further premium of Rs. 71,00,000/- + Rs. 50/- per thousand as earthquake risk charges. The opposite parties raised a demand of Rs. 57,197/- from the complainant by saying that the meeting GIPSA was conducted and all the insurance companies had decided to charge rate of insurance at the rate of Rs. 2.25 per thousand to Rs. 3.25 per thousand upon such type of units, which included Rs. 1/- as loading charges due to high claim ratio. The complainant deposited the above said amount of Rs. 57,197/-.
The complainant thereafter further got insured his unit from the appellants - opposite parties vide cover note No. 63330 and 63331 for the year 2004-2005 w.e.f. 2.3.2004 to 1.3.2005 risk cover Rs. 75,00,000/- and Rs. 47.65,000/- and the opposite parties charged Rs. 1,65,000/- and Rs. 71,599/- @ Rs 3.25 per thousand plus Rs. 50/- per thousand plus service charges as premium of earthquake.
The grievance of the complainant before the District Consumer Forum was that upon enquiry it was revealed that tariff rate of all the insurance companies was Rs. 2.25 per thousand and not Rs. 3.25 per thousand and thus the opposite parties had wrongly charged the complainant.
4. The short point in dispute is whether the Insurance Co. could increase the premium from Rs.2.25p per thousand to Rs. 3.25p per thousand on the subject insurance policy.
5. The District Forum vide its Order dated 24.08.2006 allowed the Complaint.
The State Commission vide its Order dated 16.11.2010 allowed the Appeal and dismissed the Complaint.
For ready appreciation, extracts from the appraisal made by the State Commission are reproduced below:
We find force in the contention raised on behalf of the appellants-opposite parties. It is revealed form the Letter dated 25.02.2003, Annexure A-1 that the policy guidelines of GIPSA were duly communicated to the complainant and the complainant after accepting the guidelines had sent a cheque or Rs.57,197/- for the policy for the year 2003. Even at the renewal of the policy, the complainant had agreed to the premium charged @3.25 per thousand. Thus, the plea of the complainant that he had paid the premium of Rs.57,197/- under protest, it is not acceptable because if the complainant had paid the premium under protest, in that eventuality, he would not have got the policy renewed further @3.25 per thousand from the appellant-Company.
On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that under the policy guidelines given by GIPSA, the Insurance Company could not charge premium @ 3.25 per thousand when the other Companies are charging premium @ 2.25 per thousand from their consumers. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent-complainant is not sustainable for the reasons that the complainant had been duly informed about the change of premium vide letter dated 25.02.2003 Annexure A-1 about the policy guidelines of GIPSA. Therefore, charging of premium @ 3.25 per thousand is absolutely in accordance with the policy of GIPSA.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case, it is established on record that there is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the appellants-opposite parties. The premium was charged as per the terms and conditions of the policy and as such the impugned order under challenge is not sustainable.
For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
(emphasis supplied)
6. It is seen that the Insurance Co. first charged premium at the rate of Rs. 2.25p per thousand for the policy year 02.03.2003 to 01.03.2004. It then enhanced the rate to Rs. 3.25p per thousand, and made a demand for the residual premium.
The Insurance Co. categorically informed the Complainant Firm vide its letter dated 25.02.2003 that "all the four Public Sector Companies through GIPSA have decided and finalized at Panipat and for this area to charge the rate Rs. 3.25% instead of Rs. 2.25% as charged on cotton based industries because of high claim ratio.", and as such requested the Complainant Firm "to please send us the balance premium cheque of Rs. 57197/- against short premium charged to regularizing the fire policy of your factory before the commencement of risk."
The Complainant Firm paid the residual premium.
The Insurance Co., on its part, clearly informed the Complainant Firm that the residual premium was to be paid "before the commencement of risk.", and the Complainant Firm, on its part, paid the residual premium before the commencement of the risk.
The Complainant Firm renewed its insurance from the same Insurance Co. for the subsequent policy year 02.03.2004 to 01.03.2005, also, at the enhanced rate of Rs. 3.25p per thousand.
7. It is noted that enhancement in the rate, from Rs. 2.25p per thousand to Rs. 3.25p per thousand, was a policy decision taken under the aegis of the General Insurance Public Sector Association (GIPSA) by all the four Public Sector Undertakings of the Government of India.
There is nothing on record to show that the Complainant Firm was in any manner singled out for discrimination or was differently treated from other similarly situate persons by the Insurance Co.
8. The contention of the Complainant Firm made during arguments that other insurance companies were charging premium at the rate of Rs. 2.25p per thousand does not support its case. Nothing stopped the Complainant Firm from getting insurance from any other insurance company of its choice, moreso when the demand for the residual premium was made before the commencement of the risk. Further, the Complainant Firm itself renewed its insurance from the same Insurance Co. for the subsequent policy year also, and at the enhanced rate of Rs. 3.25p per thousand.
9. The District Forum erred in appreciating the facts and evidence, and arrived at erroneous findings. Specifically, it erred in not appreciating that [a] enhancement in premium was under a policy decision taken by all the four Public Sector Undertakings of the Government of India, [b] there is nothing to show that the Complainant Firm was in any way (singly) discriminated against, [c] the Complainant Firm was free to get insurance from an insurance company of its choice, [d] the Complainant Firm paid the residual premium before the commencement of the risk and [e] the Complainant Firm renewed its insurance from the same Insurance Co., at the enhanced rate, for the subsequent policy year also.
On the other hand, the State Commission has made a correct appreciation of the facts and evidence, and passed a well-reasoned Order (refer extracts of its appraisal reproduced in para 5 above). No jurisdictional error, or legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, is visible. Its Order of 16.11.2010 calls for no interference.
10. We, however, make it clear that the Complainant Firm's case fails on the basis of the evidence adduced and in specific respect of the allegations of 'deficiency in service' and 'unfair trade practice' under the Act (only).
We have not entered into the arena per se of violation or otherwise of any guidelines or directions of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI).
Accordingly, the critique made herein in no manner affects the Complainant Firm's right to make its grievances with any insurance regulatory authority. Conversely, it also in no manner affects the Insurance Co.'s accountability to the IRDAI.
To state the obvious, our examination, limited to the scope and ambit of the Act, in no manner affects or impinges on the regulatory functions and authority of IRDAI working in its assigned domain.
11. With the above examination and observations, the Revision Petition is dismissed.
......................J R.K. AGRAWAL PRESIDENT ...................... DINESH SINGH MEMBER