IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1417 of 2007(R)
1. V.S.BABU, S/O.VASU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M/S.ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHAN V.NAIR
For Respondent :SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :28/07/2009
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J
...............................................
W.P(C) No. 1417 of 2007
.................................................
Dated this the 28th day of July, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner owns Tourist Taxi bearing No. KRV 4488 which
is an Ambassador car, insured with the 1st respondent Company
herein. In respect of demand for extra premium for renewal of
the policy, the petitioner had filed O.P. No.28415 of 2002, which
was disposed of along with a batch of writ petitions, by Ext.P1
dated 12.12.2002, wherein this court had held that extra loading
of basic premium can only be on the basis of previous claim
history of the policy involved. Despite that judgment, the 1st
respondent did not refund the excess amounts collected from the
petitioner by way of extra loading without any previous claim
history. It is pursuant to two contempt of court petitions that
ultimately the amounts were refunded. Petitioner wanted to
renew the policy and approached the 1st respondent for the
same. The respondent collected Rs.1476/- under the head “Any
extra loading” which according to the petitioner is against the
findings in Ext.P1 judgment. When the petitioner filed another
W.P(C) No. 1417 of 2007 -2-
contempt case, the petitioner was relegated to the remedy of
filing another writ petition challenging the collection of
additional premium. It is under the said circumstances, the
petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following
reliefs:
“1. A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, direction or order directing the respondent to refund
all the money collected in excess from the petitioner by
way of premium.
2. A declaration that the petitioner is eligible to get
cost of all the proceedings before this court.”
2. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent company
submits that the collection of the extra premium was on account
of a mistake and realising this mistake under cover of letter
dated 30.10.2006, a cheque for Rs.1667/-, being the excess
premium collected along with a discharge voucher and a self
addressed envelope was forwarded to petitioner, which was
returned with the postal endorsement that the addressee refused
to accept the same. Another Cheque No.168226 dated
1.11.2006 for Rs.1667/- towards refund of excess premium along
with a discharge voucher was again sent to the petitioner under
cover of another letter dated 23.11.2006, which also was
returned with the postal endorsement ‘refused’.
W.P(C) No. 1417 of 2007 -3-
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made
available to me the unopened cover addressed to the petitioner
containing the postal endorsement as also a copy of the covering
letter dated 23.11.2006,
3. I have heard both sides.
4. In so far as the only dispute is regarding the refund of
the excess premium and the 1st respondent is prepared to refund
the same, the writ petition is disposed of with the following
directions:
The petitioner may approach that the 1st respondent on any
working day during office hours and collect the cheque for the
excess premium paid after complying with all formalities and
issuing necessary receipt for the same.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
rhs