Delhi

North East

CC/73/2020

Sh. Sonu - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

02 Jan 2023

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. 73/20

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Sonu R/o H.No. B-4/492, Nand Nagri, Mandoli Saboli, North East Delhi-110093	Complainant
	Versus
	Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Block No. 04, 7th Floor, DLF Tower 15, Shivaji Marg, Delhi-110015	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                     DATE OF ORDER      :

10.12.2020 25.08.2022 02.01.2023

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has 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 the Complainant had purchased an E-Rickshaw Registration No. DL8ER7489 on dated 10.12.2019 vide invoice no. TEBPL/19-20/4132 and taken one “E-rickshaw Insurance Cover” vide Policy No. OG-20-1901-1803-00007714 valid from 10.12.2019 to 09.12.2020 with IDV value of Rs. 1,05,000/-   and after two months centre/handle lockset of E-Rickshaw was not working properly then the client of Complainant suddenly reached service centre of e-rickshaw but due to crowd of customers in service centre he was unable to change centre/handle lockset. After that the client of the Complainant went to other private service centre name Sathi Trading Company Service Centre and changed the centre/handle lockset same day i.e. 02.02.2020. The vehicle was hired on 14.03.2020 for the returned journey and Complainant kept waiting for the passenger for about 20 to 25 minutes but when the passenger did not return after waiting or sufficient time then the Complainant went to the building in which the passenger had entered which was hardly about 20 meters straight in the street and vehicle was continuously visible to Complainant and was duly locked and as such the vehicle was not left unattached at any point of time. It was shocking for the Complainant also that his vehicle was stolen in such a short frame of time only when Complainant asked the occupant of the building for his passenger. The vehicle was stolen then after that the client of the Complainant called PCR for report of his stolen vehicle. The PCR had not come for the same. Then the Complainant went to the police station on 16.03.2020 for lodge F.I.R for stolen his vehicle but that day officer said that investigation officer was not available today so you lodged your F.I.R next day for the said vehicle in question. After that the Complainant went to the police station on 17.03.2020 and lodged F.I.R no. 009044/2020, P.S Jafrabad. The Complainant intimate to the Opposite Party on 18.03.2020 for his stolen vehicle and after that Opposite Party appointed investigation officer and after few days Opposite Party’s investigation officer had reached to the Complainant’s home and properly investigate his investigation for stolen vehicle and suggested to Complainant submit all relevant documents and both key of vehicle in the branch office of insurance company and then Complainant duly submitted all relevant documents along with both keys of vehicle. The Opposite Party aforesaid letter dated 13.08.2020 received by the Complainant through e-mail on 16.09.2020 it revealed that the officials of the Opposite Party who had visited for verifications purpose had not furnished the correct information to the Opposite Party end resultantly on those wrong facts Opposite Party had issued the unwarranted letter to the Complainant. Further the wrong address was mentioned on the aforesaid letter and as such it was never delivered to the Complainant and it was only when the Complainant made inquiry regarding his claim then the officials of Opposite Party sent the above said letter to the client of the Complainant through e-mail on 16.09.2020. It had been alleged that the Complainant had left the vehicle unattended and went looking for passenger leaving the vehicle which was negligence on the part of the Complainant which was totally wrong observation submitted by the Opposite Party’s investigation officials. It had been also alleged that both keys submitted by the Complainant are duplicate, lockset was changed but not bill was submitted. Then the client of the Complainant submitted the reply on 21.09.2020 along with lockset bill. The Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- against (IDV) amount with 18 % interest, Rs. 50,000/- being expenses incurred by the Complainant and Rs. 10,000 being legal expenses incurred by the Complainant.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed written statement.  It is stated by the Opposite Party that the complaint related to policy no. Og-20-1901-1803-00007714 providing coverage for the period from 10.12.2019 to 09.12.2020 issued by the Opposite Party in favour of the Complainant. The vehicle of the Complainant was duly investigated and it was found that there was gross negligence on the part of the Complainant and he left the vehicle unattended in breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. Further the Complainant failed to submit the relevant documents to the Opposite Party despite several letters and reminders and therefore the claim of the Complainant was rightly repudiated. The Insured was not expected to leave the vehicle unattended and the reason of loss/theft of the alleged vehicle, if any, was due to leaving of vehicle unattended by the Complainant and therefore the claim was found not maintainable.  Besides the above there are other reasons which are mentioned and conveyed to the Complainant and the repudiation letter was duly sent to the Complainant. The Complainant had left the vehicle unattended which is clear negligence on the part of the Complainant leading to the violation of condition no. 4 of the insurance policy and the same is stated as under:

The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle form loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the Company shall have at all times free and full access to examine the vehicle or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured. In the event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss and if the vehicle be driver before the necessary repairs are effected any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured’s own risk.

3. It is submitted that both the keys submitted by the Complainant are duplicate, lockset was changed but no bill was submitted by the Complainant hence material facts regarding the keys are misrepresented and concealed. Insured had clearly failed to safeguard the vehicle by leaving it unattended. It is also submitted that there had been delay of 03 days in registration of FIR and intimation to this insurance company which was also violation of the insurance policy. The insurance company had sent a letter dated 13.08.2020 and asked the Complainant as to why is claim should not be repudiated on above ground but the reply submitted was without any documentary proof and was not satisfactory, thus claim of the Complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 22.12.2020. The said insurance policy is subject to the fulfilment of terms and conditions of the policy and in conformity with relevant applicable provision of law. The said policy issued by the Opposite Party was issued by reposing utmost faith in the Complainant, however, the Complainant have breached the faith reposed by Insurer and in order to take undue advantage gains, he had concealed material and relevant information from the insurer thereby violating the terms and conditions of the policy and jeopardizing the rights of the Opposite Party, therefore the complaint of the Complainant is not maintainable before the Hon’ble Commission and the same is liable to be dismissed outrightly.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

4. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statements of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

6. In order to prove its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Shri. Shyama Charan Vats, S/o Lt. Shri Suamnt Mishra working as Manager-Legal Claims, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. having its office at DLF Tower, 7^th Floor, 15 Shivaji Marg, New Delhi,  wherein the averments made in the written statement have been supported.

 

Arguments & Conclusion

7. We have heard the Counsel for the Complainant and Counsel for the Opposite Party. We have also perused the file. The case of the Complainant is that he had purchased an E-Rickshaw Registration No. DL8ER7489 on dated 10.12.2019 for a sum of Rs. 1,11,003/- and taken one “E-rickshaw Insurance Cover” vide Policy No. OG-20-1901-1803-00007714 valid from 10.12.2019 to 09.12.2020 with IDV value of Rs. 1,05,000/-. The vehicle was stolen on 14.03.2020 when his vehicle was hired on the same day for return journey, Complainant kept waiting for the passenger for about 20 to 25 minutes but when the passenger did not return after waiting for sufficient time then the Complainant went to the building in which the passenger had entered which was hardly about 20 meters straight in the street and vehicle was continuously visible to complainant and was duly locked and as such the vehicle was not left unattended at any point of time. He filed an FIR on 17.03.2020 and intimates the Opposite Party on 18.03.2020. Untraced report of the said vehicle was submitted by the Competent Court on 27.07.2020. The Complainant filed his claim to the Opposite Party and pay the IDV value i.e. a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- . Insurance claim for the Complainant was rejected on the ground that the Complainant left the vehicle and went looking for passenger leaving the vehicle unattended which is negligence on the part of the Complainant which is violation policy condition no. 04.
8.  Opposite Party admitted that the E-rickshaw was covered under the policy no. Og-20-1901-1803-00007714 providing coverage for the period from 10.12.2019 to 09.12.2020 issued by the Opposite Party in favour of the Complainant. The claim of the Complainant was duly investigated.
9. In view of the above discussion, it is admitted fact that the e-rickshaw was stolen. At the time of theft of the vehicle, policy was valid. After proper investigation by the police, final report was submitted to the Competent Court which is accepted by the Competent Court and issued the untraced report. Even, Investigation Theft Report submitted by the Investigator Officer of the Opposite party. It is mentioned that it was inquired at the spot of theft where many people verbally confirmed regarding the theft of E-rickshaw of the Complainant and confirmed that the CCTV camera was out of order.
10. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- i.e. the value of IDV to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. The Opposite Party is also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation charges along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
11. Order announced on 02.01.2023.

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

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President