Haryana

Karnal

CC/77/2020

Tarun Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Lalit Chopra

03 Aug 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 77 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.04.02.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:03.08.2023

 

Tarun Kumar son of Shri Jai Pal, resident of village Choura Khalsa, tehsil Indri, District Karnal. Aadhar card no.758779385305.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office at SCO 225, 2^nd floor, near Dominos Sector-12, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

 

2. Bajaj Finserve, Branch office at SCO 225, 2^nd floor, near Dominos Sector-12, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

    

                                                                 …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Shri Kunal Chopra, counsel for the complainant.

Ms Poonam Mittal, counsel for the OP no.1.

Shri Amit Sachdeva, counsel for the OP no.2.

 

                    (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 has purchased a Vivo, V-17, Pro Mobile phone from Batra Sales, Masjid Market near Thana Gate, Indri on 22.10.2019 for an amount of Rs.27,990/-. Complainant got the said mobile phone financed from OP no.2 and the official of the OP no.2 allured complainant to get the same insured  from their sister concern i.e. OP no.1 and accordingly, complainant got insured the same from OP no.1. OP no.1 started charging Rs.162/- per month as insurance premium from the complainant. The first premium was deducted on 02.12.2019 and thereafter, OP no.1 issued a policy bearing no.863264043869690 for 12 months under scheme of “Fonesafe” and the said policy is valid from 22.10.2020 to 21.01.2021. Unfortunately, on 08.12.2019, complainant was going at his work but in the way, his motorcycle slipped down due to which he fell down from the motorcycle and the mobile phone which was in the shirt pocket of complainant all fell down and was badly damaged. After the said incident, complainant lodged the claim with the OPs and completed all the formalities. Thereafter, complainant requested the OPs so many times to settle the claim but OPs did not settle the claim. To the very utter surprise, OP no.2 refunded back the insurance premium of Rs.162/-in the account of the complainant by alleging that the mobile phone of complainant was mistakenly insured by the company. There was no mistake on the part of the OP, rather OP refunded back the said amount in the account of complainant just to avoid from making payment of the insured amount of the complainant. On the other hand, OP no.1 has been charging the financed premium of Rs.2799/- per month from the complainant in an illegal and unlawful manner. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 13.01.2020 to the OPs but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version, raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the abovesaid mobile is not insured with the OP and mobile got damaged due to negligence of the complainant. Moreover, complainant never lodged any claim with the OP. However, the said policy is cancelled due to loan is cancelled by Bajaj Finserve Ltd. i.e. OP no.2, which means customer is defaulter, hence the OP made refunded premium to OP no.2. Therefore, there is no liability of insurance company. Policy was cancelled on 06.12.2019 whereas date of loss is 08.12.2019. So, the present complaint is premature. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant duly approached the OP for the cancellation of the insurance policy on 28.11.2019 and accordingly, a service request number was raised by the OP vide SRN no.SR24328499. Basis, the said request received from the complainant, the OP, in a goodwill gesture, cancelled the said insurance loan on 01.12.2019 and refunded the deducted EMI of Rs.162/- on 10.12.2019, vide UTR no.CMS1328716730 to the Bank account of the complainant. The fact of service request number registered by OP at its branch office in Karnal and the cancellation of the insurance loan was also informed to the complainant by sending SMS to his registered mobile no.8708324834 on 28^th November, 2019 and 01.12.2019, the details fo SMS logs are given below:

Mobile number	Sent date	Delivered Text
8708324834	01.2.2019	Dear customer, your request for insurance loan cancellation V53EWCFM479695 has been processed.
8708324834	01.12.2019	Your service query has been successfully closed. To help us serve you better, rate us
8708324834	28.11.2019	We are in receipt of your service request SR24328499. We will respond to you in 15 working days. Regards, Bajaj Finance Ltd.

 

The OP submits that it is on the basis of the request raised by the complainant, that the insurance loan/insurance policy has been duly cancelled by OPs. The EMI amount has been duly refunded to the complainant, it is evident from the statement of account. It is further pleaded that OP has no role in the approval or rejection of the insurance claim as the OP is a mere financer and is not in the business of the insurance. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of legal notice Ex.C1, postal receipt Ex.C2, copy of bill dated 22.10.2019 Ex.C3, copy of Extended Warranty Policy Schedule Ex.C4, postal envelop with AD Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on 20.1.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Saurav Khullar, Senior Executive Ex.OW1/A, copy of application for cancellation of the policy given by the complainant Ex.OP1, copy of email regarding refund given to complainant Ex.OP2 and Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence on 19.01.2023 by suffering separate statement.

7.             Learned counsel for the OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Ms. Shivani Garg Ex.RW2/A, copy of View TM Application/View Examination Report Ex.OP2/A, copy of certificate of Incorporation Bajaj Finance Ltd. Ex.OP2/B, copy of certificate of commencement of Business Ex.OP2/C, copy of insurance cancellation request dated 28.11.2019 Ex.OP2/D, copy of statement of account, loan for mobile Ex.OP2/E, copy of statement of account of extended warranty loan Ex.OP2/F and closed the evidence on 09.09.2022 by suffering separate statement.

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

9.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant has a purchased a Vivo, V-17, Pro Mobile on 22.10.2019 for the consideration of Rs.27,990/-. Complainant got financed the said mobile from OP no.2. Complainant also got insured the same from OP no.1. OP no.1 started charging Rs.162/- per month as insurance premium from the complainant. The first premium was deducted on 02.12.2019. On 08.12.2019, the mobile phone  of complainant fell down when he was going to his motorcycle and was badly damaged. After the said incident, complainant lodged the claim with the OPs and completed all the formalities and requested the OPs to settle the claim but OPs did not settle the same. Rather OP refunded back the insurance amount in the account of complainant just to avoid from making payment of the insured amount of the complainant and prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that mobile got damaged due to negligence of the complainant.  Complainant never lodged any claim with the OP. The policy in question has been cancelled by the OP, due to loan is cancelled by OP no.2. There is no liability of insurance company. Policy was cancelled on 06.12.2019 whereas date of loss is 08.12.2019. So, the present complaint is premature and prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.1.

11.           Learned counsel for the OP no.2, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant  approached the OP for the cancellation of the insurance policy on 28.11.2019 and accordingly, a service request number was raised by the OP and on the basis of said request, the OP, in a goodwill gesture, cancelled the said insurance loan on 01.12.2019 and refunded the deducted EMI of Rs.162/- on 10.12.2019 to the Bank account of the complainant and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.2.

12.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

13.           As per version of the complainant, complainant got financed the mobile set in question from the OP no.2 and the same was got insured from the OP no.1. On 08.12.2019, the mobile set of the complainant was fell down and badly damaged. Complainant lodged the claim with the OPs but OPs did not pay the same after repeated requests. The onus to prove his version was relied upon the complainant but complainant has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. To prove his case, complainant relied upon the documents  i.e. copy of legal notice Ex.C1, postal receipt Ex.C2, copy of bill dated 22.10.2019 Ex.C3, copy of Extended Warranty Policy Schedule Ex.C4, postal envelop with AD Ex.C5, except these documents there is nothing is on the file to prove that complainant at the time incident, the policy in question was in existing position.

14.           On the other hand, as per versions of the OPs, the insurance policy has been cancelled by the OP no.1 on the request of the complainant. To prove its version, OP no.1 has placed on file copy of application regarding cancellation of the policy given by the complainant to OP no.1 as Ex.OP1 dated 28.11.2019 and copies of email regarding refund given to complainant as Ex.OP2 and statement of account Ex.OP3. It is evident from the said documents, premium amount has been duly refunded to the complainant. Thus, in view of the said documents, it has been duly proved on record that the insurance policy has already been cancelled by the OP no.1 prior to the date of incident.

15.           Hence, in view of the above discussion, the present complaint is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:03.08.2023                                                                     

                                                        President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

       

 (Vineet Kaushik)            (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)                

            Member                                Member