Haryana

Sonipat

362/2013

GOPALA MOBILE SHOP - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO.,2. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO.,3. ROHIT RELAN,4. AJAY - Opp.Party(s)

GAURAV DAHIYA

16 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.362 of 2013

                                Instituted on:03.09.2013

                                Date of order:09.06.2015

 

M/s Gopala Mobile Shop, Shop no.1, Azad Market, Jhandi road, Sonepat through its Prop. Krishan Gopal.

…Complainant.         

Versus

 

1.Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. Ltd. SCO 329, Sector 9, Panchkula.

2. Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. Ltd. Pawan Mega Mall, IInd Floor, near HDFC Bank Ltd. Sonepat.

3.Rohit Relan, Authorized Agent, Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. Ltd. c/o IDBI Bank, Mahfit Banquet Hall, Sonepat.

4.Ajay Mahajan, 784, Stadium road, Model Town, Panipat.

 

                                                     …Respondents.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Gaurav Dahiya, Advocate for complainant.

           Sh. Joginder Kuhar, Adv. for respondents no.1 and 2.

           Respondent no.3 given-up by ld counsel for the

           Complainant vide his separate statement on 18.7.2014.

           Respondent no.4 ex-parte on 10.12.2013.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

Prabha Wati-Member.

DV Rathi-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he got insured his shop through policy no.OG-12-1207-4092-00000785 from respondent no.1 through his

Authorized agent i.e. respondent no.3.  Unfortunately, in the intervening night of 1/2.9.2012, theft was occurred in the shop of the complainant and  FIR no.427 dated 2.9.2012 u/s 380 IPC PS City, Sonepat was registered and intimation to the respondent no.3 regarding the theft in the shop was given, upon which, the respondent no.4 inspected the shop of the complainant and has confirmed the occurrence of theft.  The complainant fulfilled all the formalities by submitting all the relevant documents and thereafter the complainant has made several visits to the respondents no.2 to 4, but of no use. Rather the respondents have repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 26.12.2012.  Whereas the respondents were liable to make the payment of Rs.5 lacs to the complainant, but repudiation of the claim has caused unnecessary mental agony, harassment and humiliation to the complainant.  So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In the present case, the respondents no.1 and 2 have appeared and they filed their joint written statement. Whereas respondent no.4 was proceeded against ex-parte on 10.12.2013 and respondent no.3 was given-up by ld. Counsel for the complainant vide his separate statement on 18.7.2014.

          The respondents no.1 and 2 in their written statement has denied the fact that the complainant has completed all the necessary formalities for the settlement of his claim.  Many reminders were sent to the complainant but of no use and the claim of the complainant was closed as no claim as the complainant never fulfilled the required essential requirements of the respondents no.1 and 2 for the settlement of the claim.  The respondents no.1 and 2 have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. As per the policy, the total sum insured is Rs.5 lacs including coverage of Rs.35000/- towards F&F, Rs.10,000/- for TV, Rs.25000/- for AC, Rs.20000/- for PC and Rs.10000/- for CC TV and the total sum insured for the stocks in trade excluding above mentioned is Rs.4 lacs.  The complainant himself has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  The complainant has not suffered any mental agony, harassment or humiliation at the hands of the respondents no.1 and 2 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint since there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.1 and 2.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

          Ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that due to theft occurred in the shop which was insured with the respondents no.1 and 2, the complainant has suffered a huge financial loss to the tune of Rs.5 lacs.  But the respondents no.1 and 2 have wrongly and illegally repudiated the legal and genuine claim of the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.1 and 2.

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 have submitted that the complainant has not completed all the necessary formalities for the settlement of his claim.  Many reminders were sent to the complainant but of no use and the claim of the complainant was closed as no claim.  The respondents no.1 and 2 have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. As per the policy, the total sum insured is Rs.5 lacs including coverage of Rs.35000/- towards F&F, Rs.10,000/- for TV, Rs.25000/- for AC, Rs.20000/- for PC and Rs.10000/- for CC TV and the total sum insured for the stocks in trade excluding above mentioned is Rs.4 lacs.  The complainant himself has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  The complainant has not suffered any mental agony, harassment or humiliation at the hands of the respondents no.1 and 2.

          The perusal of the case file shows that the complainant has placed on record the documents ExP1 to Ex.P51 and documents B1 to B15.

          The respondents no.1 and 2 have also placed on record the documents R1 to R8, copy of surveyor report and copy of statement of complainant.

          The bare perusal of the documents placed on record by the complainant itself shows that the complainant has produced the original bills and some photo copies of the bills Ex.P8 to P50.  The complainant has also placed on record Ex.P3 courier slip of Trackon Courier Co. Ltd.  As per this courier receipt, the complainant sent the documents to the surveyor Shri Ajay Mahajan on dated 24.12.2012, whereas Shri Ajay Mahajan surveyor has submitted his report dated 24.12.2012 in the insurance company on 26.12.2012. So, the documents sent by the complainant to Shri Ajay Mahajan Surveyor are not attached with the surveyor report submitted by the surveyor in the insurance company and thus, these documents were not considered by the insurance company.  Moreover, the complainant wrote a letter dated 3.1.2013 to the insurance company, in which, he has mentioned that he was busy in the construction work of his shop, so he could not submit the documents with the insurance company and he has prayed to reopen the case file and to settle the claim. 

            In our view the ends of justice would be fully met if the directions are given to both the parties.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent insurance company to reopen the case file of the complainant and the complainant is also directed to provide the documents as mentioned in the Annexure R4/letter dated 4.9.2012 to the respondents within a period of one month from the date of passing of this order.  Similarly, the respondents are directed to decide the claim case of the complainant within a period of one month which shall be started from the day when the complainant provides the documents to the respondents as mentioned in the document Annexure R4/letter dated 4.9.2012.

           With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands disposed off.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:09.06.2015