| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 224 of 1.6.2016 Decided on: 18.2.2021 Jasvir Singh @ Jassa son of Sh.Kartar Singh, resident of village Baghoura, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.SCF 12-13, Second Floor, Gurudwara Dukhniwaran Sahib Market, Patiala through its Manager. …………Opposite Party Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member ARGUED BY Sh.D.S.Sehgal, counsel for complainant. Sh.Amit Gupta, counsel for OP. ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER, PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by Jasvir Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
FACTS OF THE COMPLAINT - Briefly the case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased insured policy for the period from 4.2.2015 to 3.2.2016 for his Ford Endeavor car bearing chassis & Engine No.UBC77410 and paid premium of Rs.40,986/-.The value of the insured vehicle was assessed as Rs.8,50,000/-.
- It is averred that on 12.10.2015, when the complainant was going alongwith his friend from Anau to Nava Ganj Road, Luckhnow (UP) and was driving the vehicle in a moderate speed at his left side, when he reached near Ajgain Kasba, a tralla was going in front of his vehicle, suddenly a stray cow came in front of the tralla, due to which the driver of tralla applied brakes without giving any indication, as a result of which the complainant was not able to stop his car and unfortunately the car hit the backside of tralla and badly damaged. The driver of the tralla fled away from the spot alongwith tralla. Complainant informed OP about the said accident. Photographs of the damaged car were also taken by the complainant at the spot. Information was conveyed to the local Ford Agency situated at Workshop No.4, Hal ancillary Estate, Ismailganj Ward, Faizabad Road, Lucknow and the car was brought to the said workshop by towing the same.
- Complainant lodged the claim with the OP.OP appointed surveyor, who visited the spot as well as the workshop of Ford. The workshop of Ford refused to repair the car it being badly damaged. The vehicle is lying at the workshop of Lucknow. All the relevant documents were handed over to the surveyor. Thereafter the OP appointed another surveyor namely S.P.Singh to verify the documents.
- It is averred that the complainant received a letter dated 4.1.2016 from the OP stating therein that the said vehicle in question is registered in name of one Harnath Singh instead of the complainant .At this the complainant applied duplicate RC of the vehicle, which was issued in the name of complainant and the complainant accordingly informed the OP but on 1.3.2016, the OP repudiated the claim. The complainant got served a legal notice dated 5.4.2016 upon the OP for the disbursement of the claim alongwith interest but the OP did not bother to give any reply. The complainant also got moved RTI application dated 11.4.2016 to the Public Information Officer/District Transport Officer with the request to supply the documents with regard to ownership of vehicle in question from the date of registration, which was replied vide letter dated 25.5.2016 stating therein that the vehicle No.PB-11-T-7373 is registered on 21.1.2011 in the name of Jasvir Singh and is remained registered till date in his name. Thus the repudiation of claim by the OP is unjustifed and amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on its part, which caused great mental agony, tension and inconvenience to the complainant.
- On this background of the fact, the complainant has filed this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OPs to disburse the claim of Rs.8,50,000/-i.e. insured amount of vehicle alongwith interest @12% per annum; to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, tension and harassment and also to pay Rs.22000/-as litigation expenses.
REPLY/WRITTEN STATEMENT - Notice of the complaint was duly served upon the OP who appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In the preliminary objections raised by the OP, it is submitted that the complainant has obtained policy No.Og-15-1214-1801-0000-1855, covering the vehicle having registration No.PB-11T-7373 w.e.f.5.2.2015 to 4.2.2016.Intimation was given by the complainant on 13.10.2015 with regard to the damage to the vehicle on 12.10.2015.Sh.R.P.Singh,surveyor and loss assessor was appointed to access the loss and got verify the registration number of the vehicle from Registering Authority, according to which registration No.PB-11T-7373 was existing in the name of one Harnath Singh and the said vehicle is TATA Safari having engine No.40302020AWZN00194, chassis No.483DLTC50AWE27, where the insurance policy was issued in the name of complainant for his car Ford Endeavor bearing engine and Chassis number BC77410.Clarification in this regard was also sought from the complainant vide letters dated 23.12.2015 and 4.1.2016 but the complainant did not give any reply and ultimately vide letter dated 1.3.2016 the claim was repudiated. As such the complainant was plying the vehicle without valid and effective registration certificate. As such there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP.
- On merits the OP reiterated the facts as raised in the preliminary objections, the contents of which are not repeated for the sake of brevity. After denying the other averments, the OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
-
- In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C23 and closed the evidence. In additional evidence the complainant tendered documents Exs.C24 to C27 and closed the same.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has tendered affidavit Ex.OPA of Sh.Navjit Singh alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP8 and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
-
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased policy for his Ford Endeavor car from 4.2.2015 to 3.2.2016 and paid the premium of Rs.40986/- ..The value of car was assessed as Rs.8.50,000/-.The ld. counsel further argued that on 12.10.2015 when the complainant was going alongwith friend from Anau to Nava Ganj Road, Lucknow and the vehicle was driving by the complainant on moderate speed. The ld. counsel further argued that a tralla was also going infront of the vehicle in question, in the mean time a stray cow came infront of the tralla due to which driver of the tralla applied breaks without any indication and unfortunately car of the complainant hit the backside of the tralla and car was badly damaged and the driver of the tralla fled away from the spot. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant informed the OP about the accident and also took the photographs of the damaged car. Information was given to Ford Agency at Lucknow and the complainant lodged the claim with the OP. The ld. counsel argued that on 4.1.2016 letter was received from the OP that the vehicle in question was registered in the name of Harnath Singh. The ld. counsel further argued that immediately complainant applied for duplicate RC and was submitted to the OP but the claim was repudiated on 1.3.2016.The ld. counsel further argued that as the case is fully proved so the complaint be allowed.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has stated that the complainant intimated on 13.10.2015 regarding the damage to the vehicle and the insurance company appointed R.P.Singh surveyor. It was found that the vehicle having registration No.PB-11T-7373 is in the name of Harnath Singh whereas policy was issued to the complainant for the Ford Endeavor .The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant plied his vehicle with fake and fabricate registration, so the claim has been rightly repudiated.
- To prove this case, the complainant has tendered Ex.CA his affidavit and has deposed as per his complaint. The complainant has proved Ex.C1 driving licence of Jasvir Singh,Ex.C2 is the registration number of the vehicle, it is in the name of Jasvir Singh s/o Kartar Singh. It is for Ford Endeavor, engine number and chassis number is also clearly mentioned in the registration certificate. So it is clear from this registration certificate that the vehicle No.PB 11T-7373 is registered in the name of Jasvir Singh and the vehicle is Ford Endeavor.Ex.C3 is the insurance cover, issued by the OP and the total insured value is Rs.8,50,000/-.The registration No.PB-11T-7373 is mentioned and the same is in the name of Jasvir Singh s/o Kartar Singh and the total premium of Rs.40986/- was paid.Exs.C4 to C13 are the photographs of the damaged car, Ex.C14 is the document of Ford Agency, Lucknow,Ex.C15 is a letter of written by OP to complainant to clarify the ownership of the vehicle, Ex.C16 is the registration certificate of the car PB 11T 7373, it is in the name of Jasvir Singh s/o Kartar Singh of village Bhagoura,Tehsil and District Patiala. So from this document,Ex.C16, it is clear that the vehicle which met with an accident and which was duly insured vide insurance cover note Ex.C3 belongs to Jasvir Singh.Ex.C17 is the repudiation letter,Ex.C18 is the legal notice, Ex.C19 is the postal receipt,Ex.C20 is the RTI application filed on behalf of the complainant with the District Transport Officer to kindly intimate the name of owner of Ford Endeavor PB 11T-7373,Ex.C23 is the report of RTO.It is mentioned that the vehicle No.PB-11T-7373 is in the name of Jasvir Singh son of Kartar Singh of village Bhagoura District Patiala. The chassis number is UBC77410 and the engine Number is UBC77410 and colour is white.
- So it is clear from the report Ex.C23 of District Transport Authority, Patiala that the vehicle which was insured and as per report, it is in the name of complainant.
- On behalf of OP Sh.Navjeet Singh Assistant Manager of OP has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA and he has deposed as per the written statement.Ex.OP1 is the cover note,Ex.OP2 is the insurance document, Ex.OP3 is the surveyor report,Ex.OP4 is the document in the name of Harnath Singh s/o Mohinder Singh,Ex.OP6 is the letter written by the OP to the complainant, Ex.OP8 is repudiation letter.
- By going through the documents on the file, it is clear case in favour of the complainant ,where Ford Endeavor PB-11T-7373 bearing engine No. UBC77410, engine No. UBC77410 was comprehensively insured for Rs.8.50.000/- in the name of Jasvir Singh s/o Kartar Singh. The said car met with an accident at Lucknow and information was duly sent. The RC of the vehicle in the name of Jasvir Singh is Ex.C2, the information was sought under RTI from Registering Authority and as per the report,Ex.C23 the vehicle No.PB-11T-7373 is in the name of Jasvir Singh complainant. So it is clear that the claim was rejected on the flimsy grounds and without any reason.
- So due to our above discussion, as the vehicle was total loss, so the complaint stands allowed and the OP is directed to pay Rs.8.50.000/- as assured amount to the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e. 1.3.2016 till realization. The complainant is also held entitled to compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental tension and harassment and Rs.11000/-as litigation expenses. The complainant is directed to return the salvage of the damaged vehicle to the OP. Compliance of the order be made by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.
ANNOUNCED DATED:18.2.2021 Y.S.Matta Vinod Kumar Gulati Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member Member President | |
