Insurance providers must uphold timely service obligations; failure to renew policies can result in liability for associated damages.

PER : Mr JUSTICE T G SHIVASHANKAREGOWDA: PRESIDENT This is an Appeal filed u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 by OP3/Appellant, challenging the Order dated 02.07.2019 passed in Consumer Complaint No.975/2018 by I Additional Bengaluru Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (for short, the District Commission).

2. Appellant was the OP3, Respondent No.1 was the Complainant and Respondent No.2 and 3 were the OPs 1 and 2 respectively before the District Commission. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties will be referred to as per the status before the District Commission.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, the Complainant is the owner of the car bearing No. KA-50 P- 8007. He has purchased the said car from the OP1. OP2 is the original car manufacturer. OP3 is the insurer of the car. After purchase of the car, the Complainant has obtained the Policy of Insurance through OP1, who in turn forwarded the Proposal to OP3. On 03.02.2017, OP3 on receiving the Premium amount of Rs.36,891/-, issued the Policy, mentioning the description of the Car as SUNNY XL and the Policy is a Commercial Policy, whereas the car was for domestic usage. The Car is valued as SUNNY XL not SUNNY XV and it was brought to the notice of OP1. He was informed that it is not a matter of concern. The Complainant has used the car, before expiry of the period of Insurance, he has approached the OP3 for renewal, for which, he did not get any response. He has personally visited the OP1, seeking renewal of the Insurance, for which, OP1 demanded Rs.22,000/- in addition to the Renewal Premium, as the Car was insured for Commercial purposes. The Complainant had purchased the car for domestic use and it was not used for commercial purpose, he denied to pay additional sum, to which OPs 1 & 3 refused to renew the Insurance. The Complainant was not able to obtain the Renewal of the Policy in time, he could able to obtain after lapse of 27 days, from Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company. Thus, OPs 1 to 3 have committed deficiency in service to the customer and hence, he sought for Compensation of Rs.4,00,345/-.

4. Before the District Forum, OP1 was placed ex-parte. OPs 2 & 3 have contested the Complaint by filing their Versions. The contention of OP2 was that, he being the Original Equipment Manufacturer, is nothing to do with any malicious or incorrect act by anybody with regard to the Renewal of Insurance and he sought for Dismissal of the Complaint.

5. OP3 contended that the Complainant has not approached him for Renewal of the Insurance. After expiry of Insurance on 16.01.2018, there is no privity of contract between him & the Complainant and therefore, the Complaint is liable to be Dismissed. Even if the Policy was for Commercial vehicle, by mentioning the car as SUNNY XL instead of SUNNY XV, no damage was caused to the Complainant as the premium was collected for the domestic use only and not for the commercial vehicle. During the period of Insurance, no untoward incident had taken place. The Complainant never approached the OP3 offering Premium for renewal. Rs.22,000/- additional amount was not demanded by OP3, it being a public sector insurance company guided by the tariff fixed by IRDA and sought for dismissal of the Complaint.

6. Before the District Commission, the Complainant examined himself as CW1 and marked 9 documents as Ex-P1 to P9. On behalf of OPs 2 & 3, 2 Witnesses examined themselves as RW1 and RW2 and 2 documents came to be marked as Ex-R1 and R2. The District Commission, after hearing all the parties, allowed the Complaint in part with costs, directing the OPs 1 & 3 a