Back
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI
Hon’ble Mr. G.R. Bedge & Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao, Members
AMEIRALI A. MUKADAM—Complainant
versus
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.—Opposite Party
Complaint No. 157 of 1997—Decided on 15.6.1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant :Mr. Trivedi, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party :Mr. G.H. Khanuja, Advocate.
In cases involving complicated questions of facts and law, including disputed documents, the Consumer Commission may refer the matter to the Civil Court for a more thorough examination of evidence and determination of the issues.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - INSURANCE - PREMIUM INCREASE - DISPUTED DOCUMENTS - REFERENCE TO CIVIL COURT: Where the complaint involves complicated questions of facts and law, including disputed documents, the Consumer Commission may refer the matter to the Civil Court for a more thorough examination of evidence and determination of the issues.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a ship owner, filed a complaint against the insurance company for deductions made from the insurance claim amount, including an increase in the premium percentage. The complainant alleged that the increase was unilateral and unauthorized, while the insurance company claimed it was done at the complainant's request and based on the advice of the Advisory Committee.
Finding of the Court:
The Commission found that the complaint involved complicated questions of facts and law, including disputed documents, and that it would be more appropriate for the Civil Court to determine the issues.
Issues: 1. Whether the increase in the premium percentage by the insurance company was unilateral and unauthorized, or whether it was done at the complainant's request and based on the advice of the Advisory Committee. 2. Whether the complaint is maintainable as a consumer dispute, considering that the claim was settled fully and finally and the complainant received the cheque without any protest.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Commission held that the documents relied upon by the insurance company to justify the increase in premium were disputed by the complainant, and that it would require a lot of evidence and examination of facts and circumstances to determine the validity of these documents. 2. The Commission held that the complaint was maintainable as a consumer dispute, as the complainant had registered his protest orally on the same day of receiving the cheque and submitted a written protest within a reasonable time.
Final Decision: The Commission directed the complainant to approach the Civil Court for a more thorough examination of evidence and determination of the issues, considering the complicated questions of facts and law involved.
Mr. G.R. Bedge, Member—The complainant has approached this Commission with a claim of Rs. 13,44,573/- on account of the following items :
(1)
Rs.
1,00,000/-
For harassment and mental torture.
(2)
Rs.
25,000/-
Towards cost of the present proceedings.
(3)
Rs.
9,90,000/-
Towards interest on Rs. 3,00,000/- from 1.1.1995 to 30.10.1996.
(4)
Rs.
1,01,000/-
On account of expenses incurred on searching the salvage.
(5)
Rs.
28,930/-
Fees paid to Average Adjuster.
(6)
Rs.
1,00,643/-
Difference between Rs. 30,00,000/- and the amount of Rs. 28,99,357/- paid by the Insurance Company to the complainant, and
(7)
Rs.
10,000/-
Cost of the Salvage.
2. The facts of the complaint in brief are that on 16.7.1994, the Vessel “MSV Safina Al-Amir” was totally lost and destroyed in the Sea due to the natural calamity. The Ship was valued at Rs. 30 lakhs. The Surveyor submitted his report on 11.4.1995. The Head Office of the opposite party-Insurance Company sanctioned the claim of Rs. 30,49,580/-. On 8.11.1996, the opposite party issued a cheque for Rs. 28,99,357/- to the complainant. On that day, according to the complainant, he registered a protest orally with the officers of the opposite party Corporation and by his letter dated 11.11.1996, he sent the formal protest in writing. According to the complainant, 9th and 10th November, 1996 were Saturday and Sunday and the office of the opposite party was closed. On 13.11.1996, the opposite party informed about the deduction made by them from the sanctioned amount. The Insurance Company has deducted the following amounts :
(1)
Towards Premium
..Rs.
3,17,766/-
(2)
Towards Surveyor’s fees
..Rs.
39,590/-
(3)
Towards Average Adjuster
..Rs.
28,930/-
According to the complainant, these deductions were effected illegally without any authority from the complainant. According to the complainant, the premium was fixed at Rs. 1,63,875/- on the value of the sum of Rs. 30 lakhs insured at 5.4625%. However, on 16.3.1994, the percentage was raised to 6.432% in place of 5.4625%. Further, on 13.6.1994, it unilaterally raised the premium to 6.432% as against the earlier rate of 5.4625%. It is the contention of the complainant that the opposite party ought not to have unilaterally raised the percentage of the premium and that such an increase is allowed to have been made based on their private and forged documents. The contention of the complainant is that once the contract was concluded, the opposite party-Insurance Company could not increase the percentage of the premium without the consent of the complainant. It is contended that this increase in the percentage of the premium has been effected much after the date of contract and the deductions have been made after the sanction of the claim by the opposite party. It is alleged that the opposite party has not produced the advice given by the Advisory Committee to the opposite party and that the opposite party has charged the premium at 9.964% as per the advice. But the same has not been shown to the complainant nor to the Commission. The letter was not supplied to the complainant although it was demanded from them. The policy period was from 16.12.1993 to 15.12.1994 and there was no question of its renewal after 15.12.1994. It is also submitted that the opposite party had earlier entertained and sanctioned the claim submitted to them without any increase in the premium. But when the claim over Rs. 30 lakhs was sanctioned, it is just before the delivery of the cheque, they have effected the deductions as mentioned above. It is further submitted that the salvage belong to the Insurance Company and the opposite party was expected to take care and protect the salvage. The expenses incurred for this purpose is required to be reimbursed. The complainant has asked for the interest amount from 1.11.1994 till 8.11.1996 on account of unreasonable delay for settling the claim by the opposite party. In fact, the opposite party deliberately delayed the settlement. According to the complainant, the copy of the Surveyor’s re
