Delhi

East Delhi

CC/655/2015

JITENDER - Complainant(s)

Versus

BAJAJ ALL. INS. - Opp.Party(s)

14 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 655/15

 

Shri Jitender

S/o Shri Ram Kumar

E-143, Sushant Lok

Sector-56, Gurgaon – 122 001

Haryana                                                                                            ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Through its Directors

Block No. 04, 7^th Floor, DLF Tower

15, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi – 110 015                                                  ….Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 26.08.2015

Judgment Reserved on: 14.11.2017

Judgment Passed on: 27.11.2017

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

            Jurisdiction of this forum has been invoked by the complainant, Shri Jitender, against M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP) with allegations of deficiency in services and unfair trade practice.

2.        Facts in brief are that the complainant got his Maruti Ritz car bearing registration no HR 55PT2333 , insured from OP vide policy        no. OG-14-1105-1803-00000665 for a period from 5/10/2013 to 4/10/2014 with IDV of Rs 3,62,7395.  On 20/04/2014, the insured vehicle met with an accident, where the driver Mr. Dharamvir survived, but his son, who was the co-passenger, expired in the accident.  FIR bearing No.267/2014 U/S 279/304A IPC was registered at PS: Jhajjar.  It was stated that claim was lodged with OP after getting the estimate of repairs from authorized service centre of OP.  It has further been stated that OP have been insisting on submissions of documents to confirm the cause of accident and as to who was driving the vehicle.  Despite complying with all the formalities, the claim of the complainant has been repudiated.  Hence, the present complaint seeking directions to OP to pay Rs. 3,62,739/- towards claim alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from date of loss till realization, Rs. 1,50,000/- compensation towards harassment and mental agony and Rs. 50,000/- as cost of litigation.

            Certificate of registration as Annexure C1, policy cover note as Annexure C-2, driving licence as Annexure C-3, copy of FIR No. 267/2014 dated 20.04.2014 P.S. Jhajjar, letter from OP dated 25.07.2014, letter dated 26.08.2014 in reply to letter issued by OP were annexed with the complaint. 

3.        Reply was filed by OP upon service of the notice.  It was submitted that the complaint was not entitled to any relief as there was no deficiency in service on part of OP.  The claim was rejected in accordance with terms and conditions as there were various inconsistencies such as the vehicle was removed from spot without intimation to OP; whether driver was present in the vehicle at the time of accident; the factum of vehicle being in motion at the time of accident.  Further, the complainant had failed to give explanation sought vide letter dated 25.07.2014 and 04.08.2014 annexed as Annexure B & C, which was not replied by the complainant, hence the claim was closed.  The surveyor had assessed the loss of Rs. 2,76,818/- as per report dated 20.07.2014.  The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated on breach of terms and conditions of policy.  Rest of the contents of the complaint have been denied.

            Insurance policy has been annexed as Annexure-A, letter dated 25.07.2014 and 04.08.2014 has been annexed as Annexure- B and C, report of Dr. Satish Kanojia as Annexure-D, report of investigator as Annexure-E, statement of truck driver as Annexure-F and survey report dated 20.07.2014 as Annexure G.   

4.        In rejoinder to the WS filed on behalf of OP, the contents of the WS were denied.  It was stated that WS of OP could not be taken on record as it was not filed by authorized person and the letter seeking clarification dated 25.07.2014 was replied vide reply dated 26.08.2014 which was sent through speed post. 

            It was further stated that the vehicle was on narrow road at the time of accident, thus, obstructing the smooth flow of traffic, which was removed by police authorities without intimation.  It was stated that as far as blood stains on the steering wheel was concerned, as pointed by the surveyor in his report, could have been of the passenger on the front seat who was removed from the vehicle from the right side and gear being engaged at the time of accident does not imply that the vehicle was in motion.  It was stated that the statement of the driver of the offending vehicle could not be considered. 

5.             Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant where he deposed on oath the contents of the complaint and got exhibited copy of registration certificate (Ex.CW-1), copy of insurance cover note (Ex.CW-2), copy of driving licence (Ex.CW-3), copy of FIR (Ex.CW-4) and copy of letter dated 25.07.2014 and reply to the letter (Ex.CW-5).   

            OP examined Shri Dushyant Kumar Meena, who reiterated the contents of their reply. He has also got exhibited documents such as copy of insurance policy with terms and conditions (Ex.R-1), letter dated 25.07.2014 and 04.08.2014 (Ex. R-II) and (Ex. R-III), report of                    Dr. Satish Kanojia (Ex. R-IV), report of investigator (Ex. R-V), statement of truck driver (Ex. R-VI) and survey report dated 20.07.2014 (Ex. R-VII).     

6.        We have heard Ld. Counsel for OP and have perused the material placed on record as none has appeared on behalf of the complainant to argue.  It has been stated by the complainant that his claim was closed by OP in an arbitrary manner.  OP has stated that the queries put forth in their letter dated 25.07.2014 remain unanswered.  However, the complainant has rebutted the same by Ex.CW-5 i.e. the reply to the letter abovementioned and has placed on record the postal receipt. 

            If we take a look at the surveyor’s report (Ex.R-VII) and Investigator’s report (Ex.R-V), both have raised questions which require trial as to who was occupying the driver’s seat, whether the insured vehicle was in motion or not at the time of accident etc.  All these questions need to be investigated thoroughly for the settlement of the claim which needs examination and cross-examination; therefore, it needs trial and cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings.  Hence, the present complaint does not survive and is dismissed without orders to cost.

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President