IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 40/S/2011.                       DATED : 07.04.2016.            

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SRI BISWANATH DE,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

                      MEMBERS              : SMT. PRATITI BHATTACHARYYA &

                                                              SRI PABITRA MAJUMDAR.

COMPLAINANT                 : SATTAR ALI,  

  S/O Hazisaran Mia,

  Station Road, Gadang-1,

  Dhupguri, Dist.- Jalpaiguri.

O.Ps.           1.                                : BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE

  COMPANY LTD.,

  GE Plaza, Airport Road,

  Yerwada, PUNE – 411 006.

2.                               : BRANCH MANAGER,

  Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company

  Ltd.,

  4^th Floor, City Plaza, Sevoke Road,

  (Opp. Payal Cinema), Siliguri.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Sri P. S. Choudhury, Advocate.

J U D G E M E N T

Sri Biswanath De, Ld. President.

The complainant’s case is that the complainant is a registered owner of the vehicle styled as Maruti Wagon R bearing Registration No.WB 74 K 3409 duly insured the OP No.2 valid from 03.05.2010 to 02.05.2011 under Policy No.OG-102404-1801-00000654.  On 24.09.2010 while the complainant was returning from Salbari with his vehicle met with an accident with a person riding a cycle.  Nobody got any injury by the effect of the said accident but the vehicle in question got damaged.  The incident was duly intimated to the OP and submitted claim form demanding the repairing cost.  On 07.10.2010 the complainant received a letter from the OIPs intimating the complainant that damages were consistent with the cause of loss.  But subsequently, by another letter dated 04.12.2010 the complainant asked to show cause as to why the claim would not be repudiated.  Thereafter by letter dated

Contd……P/2

-:2:-

21.12.2010 the OP No.2 repudiated the claim for violation of policy by misrepresenting facts.  The complainant took effective measure to get the information from the OP but to no effect.  As the claim of the complainant was repudiated without any cause and/or illegal arbitrary it amounts to deficiency of service.  Hence, this case supported by affidavit.       

OP Nos.1 & 2 appeared and filed written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as raised by the complainant.  The positive version is that after getting complaint OP No.2 deputed IRDA, the license surveyor Mr. Bibhas Ranjan Jha for assessment.  The assessment report came and net assessment loss amount was Rs.20,515/-.  Then OP No.2 issued letter to the complainant on 07.10.2010 asking his clarification within 7 days.  Thereafter, the complainant submitted another claim form to the OP No.2 on 09.10.2010 and some contradictory statement was found between the two claims submitted by the complainant.  Again OP No.2 appointed another investigator Mr. Abhijit Saha to verify genuineness and the said investigator submitted report on 22.10.2010 with remarks that insured first time informed the insurance company regarding accident with another car.  Later complainant informed that accident occurred with a cycle.  Accordingly, contradiction appears between two claims made by the complainant.  Secondly, there was no FIR regarding the accident.  Thirdly, the alleged vehicle was removed from the place of alleged occurrence.  The OP Nos.1 & 2 has quoted the statement of complainant in para 9 of W.V.  it is also stated in para 12 that the signature in the two claim form is different and that is forged signature.  Accordingly, the complainant is not entitled to get compensation as prayed for.       

Points for decision

1.       Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs ?

2.       Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?              

Complainant has filed the following documents :

1.       Xerox copy of letter issued by Bajaj Allianz dated 21.12.2010.

2.       Reply of letter given by complainant dated 13.12.2010. 

3.       Letter issued by Bajaj Allianz dated 04.12.2010. 

4.       Letter issued by Sattar Ali dated 28.10.2010.

5.       Certificate cum policy schedule. 

6.       Letter issued by Bajaj Allianz dated 07.10.2010.

Contd……P/3

-:3:-

7.       Motor Insurance Claim dated 09.10.2010 in 6 sheets.

8.       Letter given by Sattar Ali to Branch Manager dated 19.01.2011.

9.       Letter issued by Sattar Ali dated 17.02.2011.

10.     Legal Notice issued by Sudipto Mazumder, Advocate dated 16.03.2011 3 sheets.  

          OP Nos.1 & 2 have filed the following documents :-

1.       Certificate cum policy schedule along with Policy Holder’s Manual Private Car Package which contains the terms and conditions etc.

2.       Claim intimation.

3.       Claim form.

4.       Final survey report dated 30.09.2010 issued by Sri Abhijit Saha.

5.       Letter dated 07.10.2010 issued by the OP No.2 to the complainant. 

6.       Claim form dated 09.10.2010.

7.       Investigation report dated 22.10.2010.

8.       Letter dated 04.12.2010 issued by OP No.2 to the complainant.

9.       Statement of the insured dated 13.12.2010.

10.     Letter dated 21.12.2010 issued by the OP No.2 to the complainant. 

11.     Letter dated 31.01.2011 issued by the OP No.2 to the complainant.      

Complainant has filed evidence-in-chief with affidavit. 

Complainant has filed written notes of argument. 

OPs file evidence-in-chief and written notes of argument.

Decision with reason.

          All the issues are taken up together for the brevity and convenience of discussion.

It is admitted position that the complainant was owner of the vehicle in question.  Regarding accident, the complainant advanced two causes firstly, that accident occurred with a cycle and secondly accident occurred with another car.  But the complainant did not approach before the Police Station nor did the complainant file complaint before the police.  One written document dated 13.12.2010 is seen in the record and confirmed this. 

After getting the complaint the OP No.2 verified the complaint by their agency.  The agency reported the incident and the same report was conveyed to the complainant.  At that time complainant filed another claim before the OP No.2.  It is also contended by the OP No.2 that the vehicle has been sold

Contd……P/4

-:4:-

to the other persons.  It is also stated by the complainant that another claim was submitted by someone for forging the signature of the complainant and same contention has been proved by the Handwriting Expert.  The OP also contended that due to violation of the condition imposed on the certificate, regarding urgency of information to the police authority.

The main contentions of the OPs is that they caused investigation of the claim of the complainant and found that the complainant has filed two claim petitions stating separate cause of action and no FIR has been done to prove the veracity of the incident.  Even the complainant has admitted that he did not file any FIR.  The OP Insurance Company has refused the claim on ground of violation of terms and conditions of the policy vide annexure 4, 5 and 6 and also that the claimant has stated different types of statement in different time.  More over the vehicle has been sold and no independent witness has come forward to support the claim of the complainant regarding accident.

So, after considering material on record i.e., complaint form and documents submitted by the complainant, written versions of OP Insurance Company, report of Handwriting Expert, and rules laid down Annexure 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8, we are of opinion that the evidence is not clear to hold that the complainant is entitled to get any compensation as prayed for.            

In the result, the case fails.

Hence, it is

                  O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.40/S/2011 is dismissed on contest, but without any cost.

Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.

   -Member-                       -Member-                        -President-