R MUTHUKRISHNAN Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition filed by Shri R Muthukrishnan Petitioner in this case(complainant before the District Forum and appellant before the State Commission) is directed against the order of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (hereafter, the State Commission ), which dismissed Appeal No. 572 of 2005 of the Petitioner.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case according to the Petitioner are that he had taken a comprehensive insurance policy from the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (Respondent in this case) in respect of his scooter for one year w.e.f 08.05.2002 to 07.05.2003. In order to maintain continuity in the insurance cover, the Respondent sent an undated policy renewal notice demanding premium of Rs.459/-. In response, Petitioner sent a cheque dated 27.04.2003 for Rs.459/-. However, on 06.05.2003, the Respondent returned the cheque to the Petitioner demanding a revised higher premium of Rs.637/-. Respondent also enclosed a computerized worksheet indicating the details of the higher premium. It was further stated in the letter that the Petitioner should ensure that the cheque for Rs.637/- reached the Respondent by 07.05.2003 (i.e., the next day), failing which the Petitioner may be required to produce the vehicle for pre-acceptance survey. The Petitioner sent the revised premium amount by post but it could not reach the Respondent by the stipulated date; as a result, continuity of the insurance cover was broken.

(3.) On 17.05.2003, Petitioner at the instance of the Respondent produced the vehicle for pre-acceptance survey to the authorized representative of the Respondent and at that time, the Petitioner also presented him with the revised premium cheque. However, the authorized representative refused the Petitioner s request for giving a receipt/ acknowledgement for the cheque. As a result, the insurance policy could not be renewed. Petitioner, alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent in failing to maintain continuity in the comprehensive insurance cover on two specific occasions: (i) on 06.05.2003 by not renewing the insurance cover and returning the premium cheque and thereafter demanding payment of revised higher premium, that too without giving adequate notice for effecting payment; and (ii) by refusing on 17.05.2003 to give any acknowledgement for the cheque for Rs.637/-. This deficiency according to the Petitioner, continued from 08.05.2003 to 12.06.2003 during which period the Petitioner could not use his own vehicle since it is against the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act to drive an uninsured vehicle. He thus had to pay Rs.5,820/- towards hired conveyance charges during this period which caused him undue hardship and inconvenience.