DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
MAHARANA PARTAP BUS TERMINAL: 5th FLOOR.
KASHMERE GATE DELHI.
No. DF / Central/ 2015
Consumer Complaint No | : | CC 62/2014 |
Date of Institution | : | |
| | | |
Baiznath Ram
C1 /508, Nand Nagri
New Delhi-110093
..........Complainant
Versus
M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
Company Ltd
2nd Floor,
DLF Industrial Plot,
Moti Nagar, Near Metro Station
New Delhi-110015 ..........Respondent/OP
BEFORE
SH. RAKESH KAPOOR, PRESIDENT
NUPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER
V. K. DABAS, MEMBER
ORDER
Per Sh. RakeshKapoor, President
The complainant is the registered owner of a car bearing number DL 4C R 7053. He had purchased a policy of insurance in respect t of the car from the OP for the period 30.1.2011 to 29.1.2012. On 17.4.2011 , the car had met with an accident and had received damage . The complainant had informed the OP about the loss and had got the car repaired at a cost of Rs. 160926/-. The claim lodged by the
Page 1. Order CC 69/2014
complainant was repudiated on account of non submission of copy of the MLC of the driver. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OP and has approached this forum for redressal of his grievances. The OP has contested the complaint and has filed a written statement. It has denied any deficiency in service on its part and has claimed that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Preliminary objections number 2 and 5 are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this complaint and are reproduced as under:
2. That the present complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed because there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP in closure/ repudiating the claim of the complainant. It is submitted that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant by concealment/ suppression of material facts and documents. It is worthy to mention here that with regard to the claim of the complainant, the answering OP had asked for required documents vide letter and reminders dated 19.5.2011 , 22.6.2011 and 10.8.2011 but inspite of constant reminders, the complainant has failed to submit the required documents. Thereafter, non compliance with regard to submission of the requisite documents, the claim was duly closed by the answering OP vide letter dated 5/10/2011. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP in repudiating the claim of the complainant and
Page 2. Order CC 69/2014
the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The copy of letter and reminders dated 19.5.2011 , 22.6.2011, 29.7.2011 and 10.8.2011 are enclosed herewith as Annexure R1, R2 , R3 and R4 respectively. The copy of claim closure letter dated 5.10.2011 is enclosed herewith as Annexure R5.
5. That without prejudice, rights and contentions mentioned above, it is submitted that the complainant reported a claim to the OP/ respondent in respect of damages sustained to his vehicle. Accordingly, immediately the respondent appointed an independent and duly licensed surveyor to survey and assess the loss. That the said surveyor submitted his final survey report dated 26.7.2011 with the respondent. That the respondent after carefully examining the documents submitted by the complainant, survey report dt. 26.7.2011 and terms conditions of the insurance policy in question, came to the conclusion that a sum of Rs. 86,010/- was due and payable to the complainant (this was after adjusting the salvage value etc). The copy of survey report dt. 26.7.2011 is enclosed herewith as Annexure R6. Accordingly the alleged claim of the complainant is false and the same is not
Page 3. Order CC 69/2014
accepted. Hence, the present complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
The OP has contested the complaint on merits but has admitted that it had issued a policy of insurance in respect of the aforesaid car for the period 30.1.2011 to 29.1.2012. It has justified its action of repudiation of the claim lodged by the complainant on the plea that the complainant had failed to supply the information asked for by it.
We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.
It is admitted by the OP that on being informed about the accident it had appointed as surveyor who had filed his report and had assessed the loss at Rs. 86010/-. A copy of the said report has been filed on record for our perusal. The OP has repudiated the claim on a flimsy ground that the MLC of the driver had not been supplied to it. The MLC had nothing to do with the passage of the claim especially when the surveyor appointed by the OP had assessed the loss after having seen the damage in the vehicle in question. We , therefore, hold that the OP was deficient in rendering service to the complainant. Accordingly, we direct the OP as under:
- Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 86010/- ( Rs Eighty Six Thousands and Ten Only) along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of institution i.e. 26.3.2012 till payment.
- Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for the pain and agony suffered by him.
- Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.
Page 4. Order CC 69/2014
The OP shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum. IF the OP fails to comply with this order, the complainant
may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................
(NUPUR CHANDNA) (DR.V.K.DABAS) (RAKESH KAPOOR)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
