Punjab

Sangrur

CC/89/2018

Raj Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Inderjeet Singh Aushat

23 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  89

                                                Instituted on:    21.02.2018    

                                                Decided on:       23.08.2018

 

 

Raj Rani wife of Er. Prem Chand Garg, resident of H.No.734, Opposite Sarvhitkari School, Block-D, Guru Nanak Colony, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Regd. Office GE Plaza Airport Road, Yarwada Pune-411 006 through its Managing Director.

2.     Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, 2^nd Floor, Satnam Complex, Near BMC Chowk, Jalandhar City through its Executive Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Inderjit Ausht, Adv.

For OPs                    :       Shri Bhushan Garg, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:   Sarita Garg, Presiding Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

 

Order by : Sarita Garg, Presiding Member

 

1.             Smt. Raj Rani, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OPs by purchasing one online insurance policy bearing number OG-18-9906-4014-00000193 by paying the requisite premium of Rs.1881/- for the period from 5.6.2017 to 2.8.2018 whereby the Ops insured the house articles of the complainant.  The case of the complainant is that the son of the complainant, namely, Pankaj purchased one phone of Sony Company for Rs.18,399/- on 7.2.2014 which was also insured with the OPs.  The grievance of the complainant is that on 30.9.2017 the above said mobile phone of the complainant fell from the complainant on the top floor when the complainant was calling and suddenly the mobile in question badly damaged.  As such, the complainant along with her son visited Sony Service Centre, Chandigarh on 3.10.2017, who  prepared the estimate for repairs of the mobile set to the tune of Rs.17867.76, whereas the purchase price of the said mobile was Rs.18399/-.  Thereafter the complainant lodged the claim with the OP and the OP sent an email on 29.10.2017 and sought the hand set with accessories and box and also sought the original bill, as such the said bill and phone were sent to the Ops on 4.11.2017 through On Dot courier and the same was received by the OPs. Further case of the complainant is that on 23.11.2017, the son of the complainant sent an email to the OP number 1 and sought information regarding status of the claim, who stated that the claim is under process.  But the grievance of the complainant is that despite sending all the documents to the Ops, the OPs failed to settle the claim. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.18,399/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply of the complaint filed by the OPs, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no cause of action, that the complaint is premature, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complaint involves complex questions and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant obtained My Home Insurance All Risk policy in question by paying the premium of Rs.1881/- for the period from 3.6.2017 to 2.6.2018 for Rs.2,11,066/- and the policy includes furniture, fixtures, fittings, cupboard, including inbuilt cupboards, electrical fittings, sanitary fittings, electrical and electronic appliances, crockery, cutlery, steel utensils, clothing and personal effects, pedal cycles and other house hold articles not older than 10 years. It is admitted that the complainant lodged the claim of the Mobile Make Sony Xperia with the OPs on 3.9.2017 and further case of the Ops that they advised the complainant to send various documents i.e. list of contents as on date of loss, handset with accessories and box, original purchase invoice, statement regarding the presentation of similar hand set so that the claim could be processed further. It is further admitted that after receipt of the information, the surveyor, Shri Rakesh Kumar Mehta of Malerkotla was appointed, who submitted his report dated 28.2.2018.  It is further averred that the complainant was sent a registered letter dated 10.3.2018 asking him to pay Rs.1404/- which is the difference in premium between the sum insured and the actual risk, but the complainant failed to do so. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-31 affidavit and copies of documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs number 1 and 2 has produced Ex.OP/1 to Ex.Op/13 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties number 2 and 3, evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits part acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased one online insurance policy from the OPs by paying the requisite premium of Rs.1881 whereby the Ops insured various home articles of the complainant for the period from 3.2.2017 to 2.6.2018, as is evident from the copy of the insurance policy on record as Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2. It is also an admitted case between the complainant and OPs that the mobile set in question damaged during the subsistence of the insurance policy on 30.09.2017 and intimation of which was given to the OPs and on asking of the OPs, the complainant handed over the mobile set along with its accessories and box etc. for making the payment of the claim amount of the mobile set in question, but the OPs failed to settle the claim despite best efforts of the complainant, which fact is also admitted by the OPs in the written statement.  Ex.C-7 is the photocopy of photograph of the damaged mobile set sent to the Ops, whereas Ex.C-9 is the copy of the claim form for insurance whereby the complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.18,399/- on account of loss of the mobile set.  The complainant has also produced on record Ex.C-16 to Ex.C-30 copies of the various emails exchanged between the parties regarding the claim in question.  We have very carefully perused the whole case file and found that though the complainant lodged the claim with the OPs regarding damage of the mobile set in question and further it is not in dispute that the complainant sent the damaged mobile set with all its accessories to the Ops, but despite that the Ops did not settle the claim, which seems to be deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Further a bare perusal of the file reveals that the complainant had purchased the mobile set as back as on 7.2.2014, as is evident from the copy of invoice Ex.C-11.  But, we feel that the complainant is not entitled to get full amount, however, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the OPs are directed to pay to the complainant 50% of the amount of the value of the mobile, which comes to Rs.9200/-. 

 

6.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.9200/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 21.2.2018 till realisation. We further direct OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2000/- in lieu of litigation expenses. This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        August 23,2018.

 

                                                       

                                                              (Sarita Garg)

                                                        Presiding Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member