Delhi

North East

CC/101/2021

Sh. Mohd. Tanveer - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

15 Mar 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.101/21

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Mohd. Tanveer, S/o Iqbal Hussain, R/o: C-12/100, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi 110053	Complainant
	Versus
	Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Through its Managing Director/Authorized Representative 12th Floor, Dr. Gopaldass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, Delhi 110001   Regd. And Head Office at: CE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune 411006	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

13.08.2021 15.01.2024 15.03.2024

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, Member

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 30.11.2019, the Complainant had purchased a Kia Seltos THE 1.5 Diesel car vide registration no. DL 14 CE 7425 from Speedingo India Pvt. Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 9,99,000/-. The said car was insured by the Opposite Party vide policy no. OG-20-1021-1825-00003107. Complainant stated that on 24.11.2020, the said car was parked in the locality of the Complainant and at around 08:45 p.m. the Complainant came to know from the neighbours that the said car had caught fire. Complainant immediately made a call to Police and Delhi Fire Service. Complainant also informed about the said incident to Opposite Party within stipulated period. Complainant stated that one of the representatives of Opposite Party visited to inspect the said insured vehicle to process the claim. Complainant stated that on 22.01.2021, Opposite Party repudiated the claim of the Complainant as per section I, Para 2(a) due to the reason electrical breakdown in the vehicle whereas the actual fact was that the said car was parked in still position and also there was no electric current flow. Complainant stated that the said car itself caught fire and there was no consequential loss, depreciation, wear and tear, mechanical or electrical breakdown. Complainant stated that the claim of the Complainant is liable to be covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Complainant sent many emails and made telephonic conversation and requested to Opposite Party to pass the claim of the Complainant but Opposite Party did not give any reply. On 19.06.2021, Complainant sent a legal notice to Opposite Party but Opposite Party did not give any reply. Hence, there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed for the amount of the vehicle as per the value assessed by the Opposite Party, Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the alleged incident of fire in the car of the Complainant took place on 24.11.2020 and the Complainant informed the Opposite Party on 28.11.2020. There was a delay in the intimation which is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. It is also stated that on physical inspection of the vehicle which was conducted by IRDA approved independent surveyor and it was found that HID lamps were fitted in the vehicle. It was also noticed that the origin of the fire in the car was from the rear side of right head light which was due to electrical breakdown of HID lamps. This was contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is stated that the complaint is without any merit and the claim of the Complainant was rightly rejected because of the violations of the terms and conditions of the policy. It is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint. It is stated that the incident of fire was intimated to the Fire Brigade on 24.11.2020 and it was reported to the Opposite Party on 25.11.2020 through e-mail.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his evidence by way of affidavit, wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Ms. Eileen Rose Tirkey, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party. The case of the Complainant is that on 24.11.2020 his car was parked in the parking and it caught fire. His case is that the claim was wrongly rejected by the Opposite Party. The case of the Opposite Party is that the Complainant did not intimated about the incident of fire immediately to it and the fire took place as during the inspection by the surveyor, HID lamps were found install in the car which was in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
7. On perusal of the pleadings of the parties, it is revealed that the car of the Complainant caught fire on 24.11.2020 and on the said date there was a valid insurance policy issued by the Opposite Party. The perusal of the record shows that on the date of the fire incident, the Complainant has lodged report with the police vide GD No. 0111A at P.S Bhajanpura. The incident of fire was reported by PCR to Delhi Fire Service and the Fire Brigade visited the spot. The perusal of the repudiation letter dated 22.01.2021 shows that the claim was rejected due to the following reason:-

“During the physical inspection of the vehicle and IRDA approved surveyor report, it has been observed that non OEM HID head lamp tube fitted in the vehicle, and in violation of manufacturer guidelines, thereby resulting into alteration in the risk which led to electrical breakdown in your vehicle, which is excluded from the insurance according to the section 1.2 (a) of the private car package policy.”

 

8. Thus, from the perusal of the repudiation letter, it is revealed that the claim was rejected only on the ground of the installation of HID head lamp which was allegedly in terms of the insurance policy. There is nowhere mention in the repudiation letter dated 22.01.2021 that the claim was being rejected due to late intimation of the incident to the Opposite Party.
9. The case of the Opposite Party, therefore, rests upon the report of the surveyor. The Opposite Party has filed the affidavit of Ms. Eileen Rose Tirkey. She has stated that physical inspection of the vehicle was conducted by the IRDA approved independent surveyor who has found that at the time of inspection HID lamps were found fitted in the vehicle which was the reason for fire incident. The said installation of the HID lamps were in terms of the insurance policy. In her affidavit, she has also referred about Motor Reconstruction report. The perusal of her affidavit shows that she has not mention about the name of the surveyor who had conducted the inspection nor the date of inspection has been mentioned in her affidavit. The report of the surveyor has not been proved by the Opposite Party nor the Motor Reconstruction report has been proved. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the defense taken by the Opposite Party has not been proved.
10. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to pay the IDV of the car i.e. 9,49,050/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. Opposite Party is also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 40,000/- to the Complainant on account mental harassment and litigation expense along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
11. Order announced on 15.03.2024.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)	(Adarsh Nain)	(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)	(Member)	(President)