Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

cc/10/2020

Surender Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Amandeep Phogat

23 Feb 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI. 

 

                                                 Complaint No.         10 of 2020                           

                                                 Date of Institution:  14.01.2020

                                                 Date of order:                   23.02.2024

Surender Singh aged about years S/o Hawa Singh, R/o Prem Nagar, Gali No.2, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri.

..Complainant.

                                                VERSUS

1. Bajaj Allianz General Isurance Co. Ltd through its authorized representative having its claim office at c-21, 2^nd Floor Sector2, Near Nirulas Hotel, Gautam Buddha Nagar-201301.
2. Sandeep S/o Ombir R/o Village Samaspur, District Charkhi Dadri insurance agent of Bajaj Allianz General Insurace Co. Ltd. having its office at Charkhi Dadri (Agency code BAAG100008446)

                                                                 ..Opposite parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

Before-        Sh. Manjit Singh Naryal……………PRESIDENT.

Sh. Dharam Pal Rauhilla……………MEMBER.

 

Argued by:   Sh.Amandeep Phogat, Adv. for complainant.
                    Sh.Satender Ghanghas, Adv. for OP no.1.

                    OP no.2 already ex parte.

                    

O R D E R

 

1.                Surender Singh (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”) has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) with the averment that the complainant is the registered owner of the swift Dzire bearing registration no.HR-10-R-1520 which was insured with the OP no.1 vide policy no.OG-19-3297-1801-00000008 valid w.e.f. 15.05.02018 to 14.05.2019.  Unfortunately, the above said car of the complainant was stolen on 30.07.2018 near Indi Cash, ATM, Najafgarh, Nangloi Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi  and in this regard, E-FIR No.026664 dated 31.07.2018 under section 379 IPC was registered at e-Police Station (Baba Hari Dass Nagar, Dwarka). The intimation regarding the theft of the car was given by the complainant to the OP no.1. The complainant filed claim with insurance company which was not settled. Complainant sent a legal notice dated 23.11.2019 through his counsel and the same was delivered to the insurance company on 26.11.2019. After the legal notice, the officials of the insurance company contacted and assured him to pass the claim. The complainant has deposited all the requisite documents with the OP no.1 but despite this, OP no.1 have lingered on the matter and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1 which caused mental agony, harassment and financial loss to the complainant. Hence, the complainant has come to this Commission and filed the present complaint with the prayer to direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 5,53,000/- alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

2.                OP no.1 on appearance filed the contested written statement taking preliminary objections regarding locus standi, cause of action, maintainability and concealment of true and material facts.  The OP no.1 in written statement have submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1.  on receipt of intimation about theft of the car the answering OP deputed an Independent Surveyor/Investigator i.e. Suraksha Enterprises for investigation. During investigation the investigator sent letters dated 10.09.2018, 19.09.2018 and 28.09.2018 requesting the complainant to supply certain documents.

The complainant has failed to supply the said documents and ultimately the investigator furnished his report dated 23.01.2019. Extracts of the report are given hereunder:-

          “During investigation we observed that it is a case of PI(pre-inspection) fraud.         During investigation we checked the Insurance Information Bureau of India      status and we found that there was total loss claim settled of insured vehicle           against reliance General Insurance co. Ltd. in Feb. 2016.”

The insured Mr. Surender Singh is 2^nd owner and he has failed to produce copy of cash receipt for purchasing of insured vehicle. On the other hand, previous owner Mr. Yogesh Kumar is not traceable.

3.                 The claim of the claimant was repudiated by the competent authority vide letter dated 29.03.2019. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4.                Despite notices, none has appeared on behalf of OP no.2. Hence OP no.2 was proceeded exparte vide order dt. 25.02.2020.

5.                The learned counsel for the complainant in support of his case has filed affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered the documents Ex.CW1/1 to Ex.CW1/7 and closed the evidence on 21.12.2020.

6.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant has already submitted all the required documents with the OP no.1 but despite this, insurance company have failed to settle the claim of the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1.

                    Learned counsel for the OP no.1 in his evidence tendered the affidavit Ex.RW1/A &Ex.RW-2/A of documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-15 and closed the evidence on 13.06.2022.

7.                The Counsel for OP no.1 produced witness Sh. Pankaj Mishra, Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. after paying Rs. 1500/- as per receipt placed on record. The statement of said witness has been recorded separately as RW-1. Stating that Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. had settled the claim for the said vehicle.

8.                We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

9.                In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the car bearing no. HR-10-R-1520 was insured with the OP no.1 for the period w.e.f. 15.05.2018 to 14.05.2019 with IDV of Rs.5,53,000/- vide insurance policy Ex.CW1/2.  The above said vehicle of the complainant was stolen on 30.07.2018 and FIR bearing no.026664 dated 31.07.2018 Ex.CW-1/3 was registered by the complainant with the e-Police Station (Baba Hari Dass Nagar, Dwarka). 

10.               It is observed from the Investigation Theft Report dated 23.01.2019 prepared by Suraksha Enterprises, Delhi (Ex.R3) appointed by OP no.1, that there was theft of the vehicle viz Maruti Swift Dzire No. HR10R1520 Chassis No.345370 Engine no.562366 and FIR was lodged on 31.07.2018 and untraced report was verified from Distt. Court Dwarka for the said vehicle. It revealed  from the report that the said vehicle was earlier insured with Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. vide insurance policy no.2005552311002122 and claim for Rs.2,90,000/- was settled by reliance as total loss in February 2016. The conclusion of the report is as under:-

 “1.During investigation we observed that it is a case of PI fraud. During investigation we checked the IIB status and we found that there was a total loss claim settled of insured vehicle against Reliance GIC Ltd. in February 2016.

2. We also found that the insured  Mr. Surender Singh is 2^nd owner of insured vehicle and he has failed to produce any copy of cash receipt for the purchasing the insured vehicle. On the other hand the previous owner Mr. Yogesh Kumar is not traceable.

 3. We also asked insured to provide the copy of the service record of insured vehicle. But the insured Mr. Surender Singh has been failed to produce any service bill or any existence/running proof of insured vehicle hence the decision is left for the consideration of underwriters.

4. This report is prepared subject to all the terms and condition of the policy.

5. This report is issued without prejudice.”

The abovesaid information about settlement of claim by Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd is available on portal of Insurance Information Bureau of India. Having this vital information on portal of IIB the OP no.1 insured the vehicle with IDV for Rs. 5,53,000/- and charged insurance premium  for Rs. 25,449/- and issued insurance policy No. OG-19-3297-1801-00000008 for the period from 15.05.2018 to 14.05.2019. Earlier policy issued by Reliance GIC vide policy no.2005552311002122 for the period from 12.02.2015 to 11.02.2016 for IDV for Rs. 4,60,000/- and premium for Rs. 11,561/- was charged.

11.               The OP has termed the claim as fraud. However, it is not issue for us to decide the matter of fraud for which other legal remedies are available. We are concerned for the claim filed by the complainant for theft of his vehicle No. HR10R-1520 registered in the name of Surender Singh the complainant valid upto 13.02.2026 Ex.CW1/1 which was insured by OP no.1. As regards, settlement of earlier claim by Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd the same facts should have been checked and verified by the insurance company/OP at the time of issuing the policy. Hence, we find deficiency in service on the part of OP no.1, firstly for not verifying facts about the vehicle prior to issuing insurance policy and secondly denial of insurance claim after the theft filed by complainant.

12.               We observed that IDV for the vehicle in question cannot be Rs. 5,53,000/- in 2018 as it was Rs. 4,60,00/- in February 2015 when insurance policy was issued by Reliance GIC for IDV Rs. 4,60,000/-. Further depreciation @15.83% as per straight line method is required to be made for the period from Feb. 2016 to May, 2018 (three complete years on IDV of Rs. 4,60,000/- in February 2015. Such depreciated value arrives at Rs. 2,41,546/- (i.e. Rs. 4,60,000/- minus Rs. 2,18,454/- for depreciation for 3 years). The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited has charged premium for Rs. 25,449/- for IDV of Rs. 5,53,000/-. On the same analogy, the insurance premium for IDV of Rs. 2,41,546/- arrives at Rs. 11,116/-. OP no.1 is required to refund excess insurance premium of Rs. 14,333/- (i.e. Rs. 25,449/- charged  on IDV of Rs.5,53,000/- minus Rs.11,116/- insurance premium  works out on IDV of Rs. 2,41,546/-.

13.               In the light  of above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, we allow and decree the case and an award is passed in favour of complainant  and against the OP no.1 as under:-

1. Bajaj General Insurance Company Limited (OP no.1) is directed to pay Rs. 2,41,546/-(Rs. Two Lakh Forty One Thousand Five Hundred Forty Six only) towards claim for theft of vehicle alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. 
2. OP no.1 is directed to refund the insurance premium for Rs. 14,333/- for the excess IDV.
3. To pay Rs.5000/- (Rs. Five Thousand Only) as compensation on account of mental pain and agony and Rs. 5000/- as litigation expenses.

14.               The above order be complied within 45 days from the date of this order failing which further interest @9% will be paid by the OP no.1 for the delayed period.

15.               This order be communicated to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record-room.