DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 23   of   2021

 

 

Sri Arijit Bhattacharjee,

S/O- Sri Arun Kanti Bhattacharjee,

Bhattapukur near Apanjan Club,

P.O. & P.S. A.D. Nagar, 

District- West Tripura- 799003.  .............Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

1. The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Represented by its Chief Executive Officer, 

Having his office at GE Plaza, 

Airport Road, Yerwada, 

Pune- 411 006, India.

 

2. Manager, 

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Unit No.414, 3rd Floor, Aitorma Agartala Sentrum, 

Sukantala Road, West Tripura- 799001.

 

3. Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd.,

Yamuna Nagar Gate,

Old Mumbai Pune Highway,

Akrudi, Pune- 411035.

 

4. Sengupta Motors,

Represented by its Proprietor,

Having its office at 

L. N. Bari Road, Banamalipur, Agartala,

P.O. Agartala, P.S. East Agartala,

District- West Tripura- 799001. ..................Opposite Parties.

 

 

 

 

   

__________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Anupam Paul,

  Sri Surajit Chaudhuri    

  Learned Advocate. 

 

For the O.P. No.1 & 2 : Smt. Baisakhi Chakraborty,

  Sri Shubhajit Chakraborty,

  Learned Advocates.

 

For the O.P No. 3 : Sri Mridul Kanti Arya,

  Sri Pritam Deb,

  Sri Sagar Banik,

  Learned Advocates.

 

For the O.P. No.4 : Sri Kahinoor N Bhattacharya,

  Sri Sreekanta Bal,

  Sri Anirban Bhattacharya,

  Sri Jyotishmoy Deb,

  Learned Advocates.

 

 

 

ORDER  DELIVERED  ON:   06.04.2023.

 

F I N A L    O R D E R

1. This case is filed U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant, Arijit Bhattacharjee of Battapukur, Agartala, West Tripura(in short 'Complainant') against the O.Ps namely Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., represented by the Chief Executive Officer, GE Plaza, Pune, (in short 'O.P. No1'), Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,  Aitorma Agartala Sentrum, Sakuntala Road, West Tripura(in short 'O.P. No.2'), Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd., represented by its Manager, Indranagar, Agartala, West Tripura(in short 'O.P.No.3') and Sengupta Motors, Banamalipur, Agartala, West Tripura(in short 'O.P. No.4') alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

1.1 The case of the complainant in short is that on 24.12.2018 the complainant purchased one Bajaj Pulsar 150 DTSI motor cycle from the O.P. No.4, Sengupta Motors for a consideration of Rs.83,588/- having engine No. DHYCJG94937, Chasis No. MD2A11CYXJCG06833 financed by the O.P. No. 3, Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. 

 

1.2 The said vehicle was insured with the O.P. No.1 i.e., the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.  vide Policy no. OG-19-3506-1826-00001351 with effect from 24.12.2018 to 23.12.2019 with temporary registration no. TR-01 AI- 1465 valid for 30 days. 

1.3 On 23.01.2019 the said motor cycle of the complainant was stolen while it was parked infront of the house of the complainant. The incident of theft was also reported to the A.D. Nagar Police Station on the same day and a written complaint was registered  vide no. 2019/ADN/006 u/s 379 IPC.      

1.3 On 28.01.2019 complainant lodged insurance claim with the Insurance company. But the Insurance company vide their letter dated 12.03.2019 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that said motor cycle of the complainant was not registered with the RTO at the time of theft and thus violation of Section 39 of the MV. Act, 1988 and secondly on the ground that breach of policy condition No.1 that claim was lodged after 5 days of the incident.  

1.4 The O.P. Insurance Company did not pay a single farthing to the complainant though several communications made by the complainant with them. 

1.5 Being aggrieved, the complainant filed this case before this Commission for getting redress claiming Rs.83,588/-(the price of the motor cycle), Rs.20,000/-(amount of compensation for deficiency in service), Rs.20,000/- (for harassment, sufferings etc) Rs.15,000/- (cost of the proceeding)  in total Rs.1,38,588/- along with 18 %  interest P.A.  

 

2. O.P. No.1 & 2 appeared and contested the case denying the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint petition. 

2.1 The main defense of the O.P. is that they got the intimation from the complainant belatedly on 28.01.2019 where the loss/theft of motor cycle of the complainant occurred on 23.01.2019 i.e., after 5 days of the incident which is clear violation of the policy terms and conditions. 

2.2 It is also contented by the O.P. that the complainant used the motor cycle without registration at the time of theft which was also violation of Rule 42 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989.

2.3 Another defense of the O.Ps is that by correspondences on 04.03.2019, 12.03.2019 and on 20.03.2019 the complainant was asked to provide clarification to the O.P. Insurance company but neither the complainant could provide any clarification nor he could provide any answer to the queries and hence, they rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant on 14.05.2019.

 

2.4 O.P. No.3 contested by filing written version refuting the allegations made by the complainant against them. It is the contention of the O.P. No.3 that they are only financier and extended financial assistance to the complainant for purchasing the two wheeler i.e., the Pulsar 150 TWIN DISC. They are not at all liable and responsible for any kind of insurance related claim/ release/ rejection / acceptance processing etc.  including theft, damages or accident related claims. Since the vehicle of the complainant is insured with the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2   i.e., the Insurance company they are liable to resolve grievance of the complainant if any.

2.5 There is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.3 and the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation or litigation cost from the O.P. No.3. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

2.6 O.P. No.4 also appeared filed written version denying the allegations made by the complainant. It is stated by the O.P. No.4 that they had already submitted documents before the RTO on 21.01.2019 for getting permanent registration number. They are not liable to pay any compensation as the Insurance company denied to pay the claim of the complainant. It is also stated by the O.P. No.4 that Clause No.8 of Tax invoice shows that the liability of registration etc. will be done at the risk and liability of the owner. 

 

3. Complainant submitted his evidence on affidavit reiterating the facts as stated in his complaint petition.

3.1 O.P. No.1 and 2 also filed evidence on affidavit of one Narayan Choudhury, Senior Executive Legal Officer of the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.

3.2 On behalf of the O.P. No.3 one Arijit Banerjee, Assistant Manager Legal of Bajaj Finance Ltd. filed evidence on affidavit.

3.3 One Avik Sengupta, Proprietor of Sengupta Motors, Banamalipur, Agartala filed evidence on affidavit on behalf of the O.P. No.4.

4. On the basis of pleadings, documents, evidence filed by the parties following points are taken up for   discussion and decision:-

(i) Whether the repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the O.Ps are justified?

(ii) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps?

  (iii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and relief as sought for?

5. At the time of hearing of argument the Complainant was found absent. We have heard argument advanced by the Learned counsels of the O.P. No.1, 2 and 3. Also perused the written argument submitted from the side of the O.P. No.1 and 2.

5.1 Learned counsel of the O.P. No.1 and 2 argued that as the complainant intimated the Insurance company belatedly after 5 days of the incident of the theft and did not respond to their queries hence they rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. 

5.2 On the other hand Learned counsel for the O.P. No.3 submitted as they are only financier and financially assisted the complainant for only purchase of the vehicle they are not at all liable to pay compensation for the loss of the motor vehicle.

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:-

6. All the points are taken up together for convenience. 

6.1 It is admitted fact that the motor vehicle of the complainant was stolen while it was parked infornt of his house on 23.01.2019. There is also no dispute that the motor cycle was insured with the O.P. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. w.e.f. 24.12.2018 to 23.12.2019. The incident of theft occurred on 23.01.2019 i.e., very much within the insurance coverage period. F.I.R. was also lodged vide no. 2019/ADN/006 on the same day i.e., on 23.01.2019. The only stand of the O.Ps is that the complainant intimated to the insurance company after 5 days of the theft of the motor vehicle of the complainant. Intimation even if was given after 5 days, the repudiation of claim on the ground is not justified as no overt act on the part of the claimant has been established. The vehicle was insured with the O.P. No.1, Bajaj Allainz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Total value of the bike as per the policy of Insurance was Rs.78,785/-. The bike had valid temporary registration. Hence, the O.P. Insurance Company is liable to pay this amount to the complainant as the complainant made no delay in approaching before the Insurance Company.

6.2 Accordingly, all the points are decided in favour of the complainant.

6.3 In the result, it is ordered that the O.P. No.1  i.e., The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. shall pay the sum of Rs.78,785/-(Rupees Seventy Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Five) i.e., the price of the motor Bike as per IDV of the Insurance Policy with interest @ 7.5% P.A. to the complainant from today till the date of actual payment, if not paid within 30(thirty) days from today. The O.P. No.1 shall also pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) to the complainant as litigation cost and compensation for deficiency of service. 

7. The case stands disposed off. Supply a copy of this Final Order free of cost to the complainant and the Opposite parties.

 

Announced.

 

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA.