Haryana

Karnal

CC/492/2019

Rajesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Jasbir Singh

28 Feb 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No. 492 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.02.08.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:28.02.2022

 

Rajesh Kumar, aged 26 years, son of Shri Gulab Sharma, resident of village & P.O. Brass, Tehsil Nissing, District Karnal.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune-411 006.

2.     Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, 226-227, 2^nd floor, Sector 12, Karnal.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary….Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Jasbir Singh, counsel for complainant.

Shri Rohit Gupta, counsel for OPs.

              

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant had purchased one mobile hand set Samsung Model no.A50, vide IMEI no.354471103979501, from M/s Gurdev Communication, Main Road Nissing (Karnal), vide bill noi.593 dated 12.03.2019 for a total consideration of Rs.19,990/-. At the time of purchasing of the said mobile complainant got insured the said mobile with the OP, vide insurance policy no.PG-19-1206-2020 as sum insured Rs.19,990/-. After purchasing the said mobile complainant was using the same. On 09.06.2019 the said mobile was misplaced by the complainant in the area of Nissing Karnal Road. Complainant made all efforts to trace out the same but to no effect. Then complainant lodged a police report for lost property, vide application no.132310651900397 with the police of P.S. Nissing, District Karnal. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OPs at Karnal and intimated/submitted all the required documents regarding the said mobile and police report etc. with the OPs. OPs assured the complainant that the claim of the complainant has been settled within a week. After one week complainant visited the office of OPs and enquired about the status of the claim but official of the OPs postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and did not give any satisfactory reply. Then complainant sent a legal notice to OPs on 19.06.2019 in this regard but it also did not yield any result. In this way there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action: locus standi; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is admitted fact that the mobile set in question has insured by the OPs, vide policy no.OG-19-1206-9931-00001127, valid from 12.03.2019 to 11.03.2020. It is pleaded that complainant has filed the present complaint only to harassing and pressuring the OP to submit the unreasonable and mischievous demands. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, original bill Ex.C1, insurance policy Ex.C2, copy of DDR Ex.C3, legal notice Ex.C4, postal receipts Ex.C5 and Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 04.03.2020 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Saurav Khullar Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence on 08.12.2021.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant got insured his mobile set in question with the OP and the same was misplaced during the subsistence of the insurance policy. Complainant lodged the DDR in this regard with the police. Complainant requested the OPs so many times for settlement of the claim but OPs failed to settle the claim hence prayed for allowing the claim.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for OPs argued that complainant has filed the present complaint only to harass the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.               

9.             Admittedly, the mobile set in question was misplaced during the subsistence of the insurance policy.

10.           It is pertinent to mention here that the written version filed by the OPs is not signed by the authorized signatories of the OPs, only signed by their counsel. As per order 6 Rule 14 CPC, every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader. Order 6 Rule 14 CPC is reproduced as under:-

14. Pleading to be signed:- 

Every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader (if any):

Provided that where a party pleading is, by reason of absence or for other good cause, unable to sign the pleading, it may be signed by any person duly authorized by him to sign the same or to sue or defend on his behalf.  

 

                Since the written version has not been signed by the party itself, thus written version as well as evidence of OPs cannot be considered.

11.           On the other hand, to prove his version complainant placed on record his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, insurance policy Ex.C2, copy of DDR Ex.C3, legal notice Ex.C4, postal receipts Ex.C5 and Ex.C6. Hence, the evidence of the complainant has gone unrebutted and unchallenged and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. As per insurance policy Ex.C2, the mobile set in question was insured for the sum of Rs.19,990/-  Hence, complainant is entitled for the said amount alongwith compensation and litigation expenses. 

12.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.19,990/- as insured amount to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its realization. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.7,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment and towards the litigation expenses.  This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:28.02.2022

 

                                                  

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)            (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                     Member                                Member