Delhi

East Delhi

CC/660/2016

MAHENDER SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GEN. INS. - Opp.Party(s)

03 Apr 2019

ORDER

             DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

              CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                       

                                                                                                        Consumer complaint no.   660 / 2016                                                                                                                                                                                                         

                                                                                                        Date of Institution             03/01/2017

                                                                                                        Order reserved on             03/04/2019

                                                                                                        Date of Order                     05/04/2019               

In matter of

Mr Mahender Singh  

S/o  Late Sh. Narenkar Singh      

R/o- 8 Ram Nagar Krishna Nagar Delhi 110051…………..…………….Complainant                                                                   

                                                                            

                                                                              Vs

 

M/s  Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. ltd.

Plot no. 16, Office 104-105 

First Floor, Rishabh Corporate Tower,

DDA Community Centre,

Karkarduma, Delhi 110092 ……………………………..………………………..Opponent

 

Complainant’s Advo.                 Mr Mihit Sharma & Sahil Sharma

Opponent’s                                 Mr Manish Yadav & Mr Sudeep Kumar- Sr Executive  Legal   

 

Quorum ………………………………..Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                                                       Dr P N Tiwari              Member

                                                       Smt Harpreet Kaur    Member                                                                                                                      

                    

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief  Facts of the case                                                                                                   

Complainant took car insurance package policy from OP vide policy no. OG-16-9906-1801-00073651 for his Hundai i10 Magna having registered no. DL4CAP5994 tenure from 13/12/2015 to 12/12/2016 (Ex CW1/ Anne. A). The said car met an accident on 29/10/2016 due to hit by another vehicle from its front portion, so took the car at workshop on 02/11/2016 (Ex CW1/Anne. B) and through the workshop complainant sent intimation to OP for claim of Rs 47,070/- (Ex CW1/Anne. C&D). On 04/11/2016 complainant received call from the workshop that his claim was repudiated, so he sent a legal notice for early settlement of claim (Ex CW1Anne.E&F). The legal notice was duly served to OP vide postal track reports (Ex CW1/Anne. G &H).

Complainant stated that his car policy was of zero depreciation policy and OP was to settle the claim without any harassment and loss of finances. When he did not get the claim, so paid the workshop charges Rs 47070/- and took the car (Ex CW1/Anne. i). Non settling of his claim, complainant suffered loss of Rs 2,27,274/-for which he filed this complaint.   

OP filed written statement and denied facts and allegations put against them. OP stated that there was no deficiency on their part as the complainant had not timely intimated for damage/loss and took his car directly to the workshop who intimated about the accident. It was stated that complainant did not file complaint to police for accident when his car had valid insurance cover.

It was stated that insured had to intimate in writing immediately to the insurer for any damage or loss so that surveyor could had been appointed, so violated condition 1 of the car policy. Even on the information received from workshop, surveyor was appointed who after inspection, asked certain documents from complainant, but even on repeatedly sending reminders on 05^th and 15^th Nov. 2016, complainant did not fulfill the requirement for processing the claim, so claim was repudiated. Though surveyor had initially assessed the loss of Rs 10,135/- for some parts and labour charges, but complainant did not fulfill the surveyor’s queries hence claim was closed as repudiated on 24/11/2016 (Ex OPW1/Anne. A&B). Hence, there was no deficiency on the part of OP and this complaint may be dismissed.  

Complainant filed his rejoinder and denied all the replies given by OP and stated that all the facts of his complaints were correct and true.  He also submitted his evidence on affidavit of himself and reaffirmed that all the evidences were correct and had been on record as policy documents with terms and condition (CW1/Anne.A) and job sheet with workshop bill (CW1/Ann.B).     

OP filed their evidence through affidavit of Mr Eileen Tirkey, Sr. Manager Legal at OP office, who stated on oath that the present complainant was not a clean handed claimant and did not intimate to OP as soon as damage/accident occurred and also no police report was lodged when he had valid car policy and filed claim through workshop, so violated policy terms and conditions. OP also appointed surveyor whose queries were not complied by complainant, so repudiation was justified based on the policy terms and conditions. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this frivolous complaint.

Arguments were heard from both the party counsels and after perusal of material on record, order reserved.

After perusal of all the facts and evidences filed by the parties, it was evident that complainant violated policy terms and condition 1 where he had to inform police and OP as soon as loss/damages occurred. Instead of intimating OP, complainant took his car directly to the workshop for repair and intimation was given through workshop later on. When complainant did not comply queries raised by surveyor despite of reminding by OP, claim was repudiated and it is justified. Thus there is no merit in the complaint and deserves to be dismissed so dismissed with cost Rs 2000/- which is to be deposited in the East Delhi Legal Service account maintained by the DLSA East, Karkarduma Court within 15 days from  receiving order copy.    

 

The first free copy of the order be sent to the parties under the Regulation 18 of the Consumer Protection Regulation 2005 (in short the CPR) and the file be consigned to Record Room under regulation20(1) of the CPR.

 

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari, Member                                                                           Mrs Harpreet Kaur, Member 

                                                         Sukhdev Singh – President