Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                                   Complaint No. : 261

                                                                   Instituted on     : 28.05.2019

                                                                   Decided on      : 25.10.2023

Pankaj Jewellers, H.No.4357/38, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi through its Proprietor.

                                                                             ………..Complainant.

Vs.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Regd. Office 9E Plaza, Airport Road, Yervara, Pune-411006 through its Branch Manager.

                                                                         ……….Opposite party.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh. Shekhar Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Puneet Chahal, Advocate for opposite party.

ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he is registered owner of a vehicle registration no. DL-2FBY-5000. The said vehicle was insured by the opposite party vide policy no.OG-18-1135-1801-00000629 and which was valid from 11.01.2018 to 10.01.2019 for a sum of Rs.13265/-. On 28.03.2018, the said vehicle met with an accident and the complainant informed the officials of the opposite party about the accident. It is further submitted that no FIR was got lodged in this regard as no one injured in the said accident. The vehicle was got parked in Aman Motors, near Delhi Bye-pass and an amount of Rs.464916/- was estimated on the repairing of the vehicle. Thereafter the complainant has applied for insurance claim to the opposite party company and has submitted all the required documents. The vehicle remained parked in Aman motors during this period and the complainant has to pay Rs.24,000/- as parking charges. The complainant approached to the officials of the opposite party and requested them to disburse the claim amount in his favour and also submitted all the relevant documents as desired by the opposite party. But they do not pay any heed towards genuine requests of the complainant.  As such, the act and conduct of the opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to disburse the insurance claim amount of Rs.464916/- as insurance claim and Rs.24,000/- as parking charges alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of incident till the date of actual realization of the whole amount. It is further prayed that opposite party may be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant.

2.                After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that the alleged accident occurred on 28.03.2018 whereas intimation of the accident was given after more than 30 days. The delay in intimation has denied the opposite party of the right to conduct spot survey and properly verify the veracity of the claim. They appointed an IRDA approved surveyor to carry the survey of the spot and to assess the nature and amount of loss. But the complainant not intimated to the opposite party timely and the surveyor could not survey at the spot and to assess the nature of loss. They sent letter to complainant vide letter dated 14.05.2018, 24.05.2018, 19.06.2018, 11.07.2018 for some requirements to be fulfilled by the complainant. But the complainant did not submit any reply to the said letters. Hence, the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated vide letter dated 30.08.2018. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought. 

3.                Complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence on dated 05.03.2020. Ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R8 and closed his evidence on 22.01.2021.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the party and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully. In the present case claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party vide latter dated 30.08.2018 placed on record as Ex.R3 on the ground that: “This is with reference to our earlier letters dated 14.05.2018, 24.05.20-18.19.06.2018 and 11.07.2018 for which we have not received any reply till date. Therefore, In view of the above, we shall have no other option but to close your aforesaid claim, due to non-cooperation in settlement of your claim”.  Meaning thereby the complainant has not completed the required formalities for settlement of the claim of the complainant. We have also perused the letters Ex.R4 to Ex.R6. Through these letters, the insurance company demanded some documents and clarifications from the complainant which are as under:-

a. The reason for delayed intimation to the company for 30 days,

b. The damages to the vehicle seems multiple in nature, kindly clarify,

c. Police FIR/Report,

d. Third part loss detail.

We have also perused the document Ex.C2 placed on record  by the complainant, which is a settlement between the owners of two vehicle and this settlement took place before the Police of P.S.Sadar,  Rohtak and the complainant  had already submitted photocopy of this document with the insurance company. The perusal of this document shows that there was no any third party loss, police report also not lodged. Merely settlement took place. As per the complainant, he has already submitted the required documents with the insurance company. Copy of settlement Ex.C2 is placed on record as per which there was no third party loss and as such no FIR was lodged. Hence the repudiation of claim on this ground is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Through this complaint the complainant has demanded an amount of Rs.464916/- from the respondent insurance company. Perusal of the policy itself shows that IDV of the vehicle is Rs.264461/- so the complainant has wrongly demanded Rs.464916/- i.e. more than the IDV. As per para no.2 of reply, there is delay of 30 days in intimating the insurance company. In this regard we have placed reliance upon  the authorities in Revision petition no.2033 of 2018, decided on 14.09.2021 by the Hon’ble National commission in case titled a OIC Vs. Hari Kishan Khatri & Anr., order dated 26.10.2017 in RSA No.4958 of 2017(O & M) titled as Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. GhanShyam Dass and another and order of Hon’ble Supreme court of India in Civil Appeal no.5705 of 2021 titled as Dharmender Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., whereby Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: “Repudiation of claim on ground of delay of 78 days in not informing insurance company of theft-Held, mere delay in intimating insurance company about occurrence of theft cannot be ground to deny claim of insured”. In view of the aforesaid law it is observed that the law cited above are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. As such opposite party is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant as per survey report Ex.R2 amounting to                           Rs.192347/-. At the time of arguments, a document i.e.R.C. of vehicle is placed on record, as per which vehicle is HPA with HDFC Bank Ltd. 

5.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay the amount of Rs.192347/-(Rupees one lac ninety two thousand three hundred and forty seven only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 28.05.2019 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses in favour of the financer i.e. HDFC Bank Ltd. for the purpose of settlement of loan account of the complainant within one month from the date of decision. It is made clear that after payment of loan amount, if any amount remains as balance, the same shall be paid to the complainant.

6.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the party free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

25.10.2023.

                                                          ....................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ...................................

                                                          Tripti Pannu, Member.

                                                                        ……………………………….

                                                                        Vijender Singh, Member.