Delhi

North East

CC/63/2020

Sh. Pradeep Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

20 Feb 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. 63/20

 

		Sh. Pradeep Kumar, S/o Sh. Kartar Singh, R/o: 278/18, Street No. 6, Jwala Nagar, Shahdara, New Delhi 110032		Complainant
		Versus
		Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., (Through its Director/Manager/AR) Regd. Office at: GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune 411006   Also At: 31st, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Near Nirulas Hotel, Noida Gautam Budha Nagar 201301		Opposite Party
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:      JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                        DATE OF ORDER:		20.11.2020 20.12.2023 20.02.2024

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant 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 he was the owner of the vehicle bearing no. DL 4CNA 0278 and the said vehicle was insured by the Opposite Party for the period from 30.12.2018 to 29.12.2019. The IDV of the vehicle was Rs. 5,60,000/-. On 05.07.2019, the said vehicle was stolen by someone from Meet Nagar, B-Block Delhi and Complainant immediately informed the concerned police station. An E-FIR bearing  no. 023356/2019 dated 05.07.2019 was lodged by the Complainant. Complainant stated that he immediately contacted the Opposite Party and furnished all the necessary information and also supplied all the documents as required by the Opposite Party and put his claim with the Opposite Party. Complainant stated that an untraced report dated 23.12.2019 was filed by the police before the concerned court. Thereafter, Complainant contacted the Opposite Party and asked to pay the insurance claim but Opposite Party vide letter dated 20.01.2020 asked the Complainant to furnish the untraced report and letter of indemnity and subrogation which were duly given by the Complainant to the Opposite Party. Complainant stated that vide letter dated 10.02.2020, Opposite Party intentionally and deliberately refused to give the insurance claim to the Complainant without proper reason. Complainant also made several requests/complaint but all in vain. On 20.03.2020, Complainant sent a legal notice to Opposite Party but Opposite Party did not give any reply. On 21.09.2020, Complainant also sent a reminder to the Opposite Party but Opposite Party did not given any reply. Hence, this shows the deficiency on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed for Rs. 5,60,000/- i.e. IDV of the vehicle along with interest @ 18 % p.a. from the date of filing the claim till its realization. Complainant also prayed for Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 15,000/- 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 Complainant has left his car unattended and without taking any precaution and therefore, this amounts to breach of the condition of the policy. It is admitted that the car was insured by it at the relevant time. It is stated that the Complainant had failed to provide the second original key of the vehicle and to provide documentary proof as to why the lockset was not changed after being received one original key from the previous owner. This also amounts to breach of insurance policy condition. 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.

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 Sh. Shyama Vats, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and AR for the Opposite Party. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant. The case of the Complainant is that his car was stolen and at the relevant time the car was insured by the Opposite Party. His case is that FIR was got registered and police filed untraced report which was accepted by the court. His case is that the Opposite Party has not paid his insurance claim and thus there is deficiency of service on its part. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Party is that the Complainant has left his vehicle unattended without taking any precaution which amounts to breach of the terms and condition of the insurance policy. It is also the case of the Opposite Party that the Complainant has failed to provide the second original key of the vehicle and has also failed to provide documentary proof as to why lockset was not changed after he received the car with one original key from the previous owner and this also amounts to violation of the terms and condition of the insurance policy.

 

7. From the perusal of the record it is revealed that it is an admitted fact that the car of the Complainant was stolen and FIR in this regard was registered. It is also admitted that after investigation the police filed untraced report in the court and the same was accepted. It is also admitted that at the relevant time the car of the Complainant was insured by the Opposite Party. 
8. The Opposite Party has not paid the claim to the Complainant on the ground that the vehicle was left unattended by the Complainant. The Complainant has filed affidavit wherein he has stated that the car was stolen from Meet Nagar B- Block Delhi and the matter was immediately reported to the police. On the other hand, the Opposite Party has not led any evidence to show that the car was left unattended without talking any precaution. Therefore, the Opposite Party has failed to prove its assertion. It is also the case of the Opposite Party that the second original key of the car was not provided to it and the Complainant has failed to provide documentary proof as to why lockset was not changed after the car was received only with one original key from its previous owner. There is nothing on record to show that surveyor was appointed by the Opposite Party after receiving the intimation of the theft of the car. It was a duty of the surveyor to collect the second key of the car. No cogent evidence has been led in this regard that the second key was not provided to it. Further, the Opposite Party has sent a letter dated 20.01.2020 to the Complainant whereby the Complainant was asked to produce the untraced report and letter of indemnity and subrogation to it. As per the case of the Complainant he has submitted the untraced report and letter of indemnity and subrogation to the Opposite Party. There is nothing on record as to how the issue of duplicate key surfaced whereas there is no mention about the same in the letter dated 20.01.2020. The Opposite Party has failed to prove its assertion by leading any cogent evidence. Therefore, this assertion cannot be believed.
9. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there was deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. The complaint is, therefore, allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to pay the IDV of the vehicle i.e. Rs. 5,60,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 15,000/- on account of litigation expenses to the Complainant along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
10. Order announced on 20.02.2024.

 

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

 

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)         Member

(Adarsh Nain) Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President