Ranjit Singh, complainant has filed the present complaint against The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter called, the OP)  U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short, the C.P.Act.) in which he has prayed that the opposite party be directed to give the Insurance Claim to him for the damage caused to his vehicle to the tune of Rs.5,98,638/- as the vehicle has been completely got damaged and also to pay compensation Rs.25,000/- for harassment caused at the hands of the opposite party.   

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he has purchased a new Maruti Suzuki Swift Dzire LDI car bearing Chassis No.MA3FJEB1S00379420, Engine No.D13A2210448 from Pathankot Vehicleades Pvt.Ltd. Pathankot and made full and final payment on 23.10.2013 and received delivery on 28.10.2013. The vehicle was insured by the opposite party and issued Policy cover note. The policy covered all types of risks to the tune of Rs.5,98,638/- and the said policy was valid for one year for the period from 28.10.2013 to 27.10.2014. He has further pleaded that unfortunately, the said vehicle was met with road accident on 14.3.2014 and was got totally damaged. Immediately he informed the opposite party regarding the accident to the opposite party and the officials of the opposite party on the same day visited the spot and taken photographs of the damaged vehicle and also of the site in dispute. He has submitted the requisite documents before the opposite party and compiled with all the formalities of the opposite party for getting the insurance claim but the opposite party always procrastinating the matter pending with one pretext or the other. A legal notice dated 11.11.2014 was also issued to the opposite party but they have willfully failed to comply with that notice. Due to the illegal act of the opposite party, he has suffered huge monetary loss and suffered mental and physical agony from the hands of the opposite parties, so there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  

3.       On notice, the OP filed its written reply taking preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; there is no deficiency in service on its part and the claim of the complainant has been repudiated vide letter dated 11 November,2014. Actually, as per complainant the vehicle insured with the opposite party damaged in accident on 14 March, 2014, but intimation of accident has not been given in time, due to which insurance company lost its right to early investigate the matter which is the breach of the term and conditions of the policy. Further the vehicle of the complainant was not registered at the time of loss, which is against section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Even some relevant documents also not provided. The letter dated 25 August, 2014, 13 September, 2014, 17 October, 2014 and 4 November, 2014 has been sent to the complainant as reminder letters through post, but the complainant failed to give any satisfactory reply and as such the claim has been finally repudiated vide letter dated 11 November 2014.; the documents has not been submitted by the complainant i.e. attested copy of FIR alongwith transaction and postmortem report; the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party as the vehicle is hypothecated with State Bank of India but that has not been made party to the complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground and after receipt of claim intimation, opposite party has appointed surveyor to assess the loss and accordingly the vehicle has been duly surveyed by IRDA licensed Surveyor and submitted survey report by assessing loss as per terms and conditions of the policy and there is no liability of insurance company as the claim has rightly been repudiated on valid grounds. On merits, it was submitted that the intimation to the insurance company has been given after a delay of 131 days which is the breach of the terms and conditions of the policy and even the vehicle was without registration certificate at the time of alleged accident and due to abovesaid reasons, the claim has been repudiated as due to breach of the terms and conditions of the policy and due to violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act by the complainant. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.       Complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A, alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Sh.Ajay Kumar Office Incharge of opposite party tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP21 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.

7.     We find that the OP insurers have repudiated (Ex.OP15 of 11.11.2014 dispatched on 19.11.2014 and preceded by the even numbered exhibits in the array: Ex.OP6 to Ex.OP14) the impugned accident claim on account of the first prime reason that the factum of accident was intimated to them with a delay of 131 days from the date of accident (occurring on 14.03.2014) thus depriving them of their valuable right to an early investigation and that breached the ‘Policy Terms’ (as per Ex.OP2 & Ex.OP3). However, the complainant has duly pleaded in his complaint that the OP Insurers were duly intimated of the accident over Telephone on 14.03.2014 i.e., the date of accident, itself; although, the claim could not be followed up earlier (Ex./C/VIII) since his ‘son-in-law’ Gurjit Singh had been fatally injured in that accident and his ‘daughter’ went into an ‘emotional trauma’ at the untimely death of her husband thus the complainant had been busy in more urgent chores of life. Here, the OP insurers have not disclosed the means (and exact date of intimation of accident) on the records but the Survey Report Ex.OP18 (9a & 9b) shows the date of Survey as: 23.07.2014 i.e., on the 131^st day of the date of accident and that proves that the OP had been intimated earlier than that alleged. Moreover, the ‘early’ investigation (as an outcome of timely intimation) carries understandable weight (logic) in ‘theft’ cases but loses much of its ‘momentum’ in accidental damages and all the more so in ‘total-loss’ instances. Hence, the OP’s plea of ‘delayed intimation’ does not hold ground and is set-aside. Further, the second prime reason for repudiation has been put forth by the OP as: Non-Registration of the Car with the District Transport Authority as on the date of accident: 14.03.2014 & the Date of Registration of the Car as per Survey Report Ex.OP18: has been 19.03.2014; that shows that the application of permanent registration stood filed with the DTO as on the date of accident, otherwise the registration would not have been possible on 19.03.2014. We respectfully bow to the proposition as set out in the OP quoted Apex Court judgment in the CA # 8463 of 2014; titled: Narinder Singh vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., but in that case the pronouncing Lordship has duly assured in paragraph # 14 that the appellant owner had not even applied for ‘permanent Registration’ of the accidented vehicle as on the date of accident. Thus we are neither convinced nor moved even by this second plea upheld by the OP insurers to uphold the impugned repudiation. Finally, the OP’s repudiation states non-submission of the demanded documents (as per Ex.OP6 to Ex.OP14) by the complainant. We are of the view that the OP insurers were in a better and an advantageous position to have arranged the desired documents (themselves) and presently all these documents stand supplied to them; as also available on the records of the proceedings.             

8.       In the light of the all above, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned repudiation does not conform to the principles of equity and natural justice and thus setting it aside we ORDER the titled OP insurers to pay the ‘insurance claim’ pertaining to related Policy in question as per the surveyor report( Ex. 18 and Ex. 19) dated 24.07.2014 i.e. Rs.4,52,190/-  besides to pay him Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the aggregate awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of filing of complaint till actual payment.

9.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record. 

                  (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                     President.

ANNOUNCED:                                                   (Jagdeep Kaur)

August 27,2015.                                                            Member               

*MK*