Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/272/2018

Jitendra Yadav s/o Ram Lal Yadav - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz Gen Ins. Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Premparkash Bunkar

10 Jan 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 272 /2018

 

Jitendra Yadav s/o Ramlal Yadav r/o Ahir Mohalla, Tehsil Kishangarhbas Distt. Alwar.

Vs.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co., Br.office O-12-A, 2^nd floor, Ashok Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.

 

 

Date of Order 10.1.2019

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs. Meena Mehta -Member

 

Mr. P.P.Bunkar counsel for the appellant

Mr. Prashant Mantri counsel for the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

2

 

This appeal is filed against the order of the learned District Forum, Alwar dated 3.4.2018 whereby the complaint is dismissed.

 

The contention of the appellant is that FIR was lodged only after two days and claim was submitted to the Insurance Co. on 8.10.2007 but prior to it information was given to the agent of the Insurance company Arun Jain. Hence, claim should have been allowed.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that claim has rightly been repudiated and it is also time barred.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that the vehicle was stolen on 28.2.2007 and first information report was lodged on 2.3.2007 but admittedly the insurance company was informed on 8.10.2007 which is evident from search history and counsel for the respondent has rightly relied upon IV (2018) CPJ 1 (SC) Sonell Clocks Vs. New India Assurance Co., II (2014)

3

 

CPJ 33 (NC) Sagar Kumar Vs. United India Insurance Co. and I (2018) CPJ 98 (NC) Sukhbir Kaur Vs. Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co.

 

The contention of the appellant is that information of theft was given to the agent of the insurance company i.e. Arun Jain but no affidavit of Arun Jain has been submitted and the respondent has rightly placed reliance on III (2018) CPJ 168 (NC) Sajid Ali Vs. Sriram General Insurance Co. where adverse presumption has been drawn against the complainant as no documentary evidence has been submitted to confirm that the information was given to the agent.

 

It may also be noted that as per policy document in the present case the agent is Sharad Jain hence, the contention of the appellant is not acceptable.

 

It may also be noted that theft has taken place on 28.2.2007 and within two years complaint should have been filed but admittedly complaint has been filed on 5.12.2013 which is time barred and no application u/s 24 A of the C.P.Act has been filed. It has also been contended rightly by the

4

 

counsel for the respondent that claim was repudiated on 12.12.2007 hence, the complaint is also time barred.

 

In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and stands dismissed.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta)

Member President

 

nm