Haryana

Ambala

CC/153/2013

SURINDER SOOD - Complainant(s)

Versus

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

BIRBAL DUA

13 Jul 2017

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                        Complaint No.153 of 2013

                                        Date of institution:-20.06.2013

                                        Date of decision: - 13.07.2017.

Sh.Surinder Sood son of Balbir Singh Sood, resident of house No.710/1, Kaith Majri, Ambala City.

                                                           ...Complainant.

Versus

1.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, 167/18-C IInd Floor, Hazara Singh Building, near Ambala Club, near Vijay Rattan Chowk, Ambala Cantt, through its Manager.

2.Sh.Bharat Bhushan, Agent, Agency Code-100-10176 Samata Motors Baldev Nagar, Ambala City.

                                                            …Opposite parties.

Complaint under section 12 of

 

Before:     Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.

                        Sh.Pushpender Kumar, Member,              

                   MS.Anamika Gupta, Member.                  

 

               

Present :-  Sh.Birbal Dua, Advocate for complainant.

                Sh.R.K.Vig, Advocate for opposite party No.1.

                Sh.Dev Batra, Advocate for opposite party No.2.

               

Order:-

                In nutshell, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant is registered owner of Car I-20 Magna bearing registration No.HR-01-AE-8833 and the same was got insured with OP No.1 through OP No.2 vide policy No.0G-13-1207-1801-00003470 valid w.e.f. 01.08.2012 to 31.07.2013. It is alleged that the vehicle met with an accident on 25.02.2013 and its panel Assy-Tail Gate & back light got damaged. The complainant informed the OPs on 26.02.2013 but he had been intimated that the policy had been cancelled without any prior intimation. The complainant got the vehicle repaired by spending a sum of Rs.16,966/- vide bill dated 15.03.2013 issued by Samta Motors and visited the OPs but to no effect. It has been further alleged that in order to avoid any un-toward incident he got his vehicle insured from Fortune Insurance Company by paying a premium to the tune of Rs.19885/-. He got served upon legal notice upon the OPs but all fell on deaf ears. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. Hence, this complaint.

2.             Pursuant to notices, opposite parties appeared and OP No.1 filed its written reply wherein several preliminary objections such as cause of action, jurisdiction and estoppal have been taken. It has been submitted that OP No.1 had insured the car I-20 bearing registration NO.HR01-AF-8833 for a period from 01.08.2012 to 31.07.2013 vide policy No. 0G-13-1207-1801-00003470 but keeping in view adverse claim history for own damage section mentioned in the policy, the Op No.1 had cancelled the policy on 25.01.2013 by giving 7 days prior notice for cancellation to the complainant. Vide letter dated 20.03.2013, Op No.1 also informed the complainant to fill NEFT mandate form and further send back to it alongwith cancelled cheque  so that balance amount lying in his account could be refunded but till today the complainant has not complied with the same. The policy in question has righty been cancelled with prior intimation to the complainant; therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. OP No.2 adopted the reply filed on behalf of OP No.1 vide statement dated 15.02.2016.

3.             In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX alongwith documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C11. On the other hand, the OPs have tendered affidavit Annexure RX and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R5.

 

4.             Undisputedly, the insurance claim of the complainant had already been cancelled before the accident in which his car got damaged and lodging of claim by him with the Ops. The core question for consideration before this Forum is that whether prior intimation was sent to the complainant by the OPs before cancellation of the policy in question.  Learned counsel for the OPs has drawn the attention of this Forum towards condition No.5 of the policy, which is reproduced as under:

“The company may cancel the policy by sending seven days notice by recorded delivery to the insured at the insured’s last known address and in such even will return to the insured the premium paid less the prorata portion thereof for the period the policy has been in force may be cancelled at any time by the insured on seven days’ notice by recorded delivery and provided no claim has arisen during the currency of the policy, the insured shall be entitled to a return of premium less premium at the company’s short period rates for the period the policy has been in force. Return of the premium by the company will be subject to retention of the minimum premium of Rs.100/- (or Rs.25/- in respect of vehicles specifically designed/modified for use by blind/handicapped/mentally challenged persons). Where the ownership of the vehicle is transferred, the policy cannot be cancelled unless evidence that the vehicle is insured elsewhere is produced”     

 

Annexure R1 (notice for policy cancellation dated 17.01.2013) and Annexure R2 (postal receipt). Relevant portion mentioned in Annexure R1 is as under:

 

Please be noted that in view of “Adverse Claim History Observed”  in the above mentioned policy we are unable to continue further against this policy for Own Damage Section of your policy.

Kindly note that the above-mentioned policy will be cancelled on 25.01.2013 thereby giving you 7 days notice for cancellation. You are requested to kindly get your vehicle insured immediately with some other insurance company for third party risk at-least as it is required mandatory by law and send as a copy of the new insurance for processing of the refund cheque.

No coverage will be available under the captioned policy after the said date. 

 

Annexure R3 is another letter dated 20.03.2013 addressed to the complainant depicts as under:

 

Please refer to our letter dated 17.01.2013. Please note as per our letter the said policy stand cancelled and we have issued Liability only policy for balance period, as informed in our earlier communication also to you.

You are requested to kindly fill the NEFT mandate form attached herewith & send it back to us along with copy of a cancelled cheque of your bank account, to enable us to refund the balance amount lying in your float account with us.

        The counsel for the complainant has rebutted the above said contention that the OP has cancelled the policy of the complainant only one ground “Adverse Claim History Observed” but failed to produce on record that what was the reverse claim history which has been base of the cancellation of the policy in question. The complainant has further argued that the complainant had also sent the notice for giving the claim amount because the vehicle in question had been met with an accident and he paid the amount to the tune of Rs.16,966/- but the ops have wrongly repudiated the claim on the ground that they have already cancelled the policy prior to accident i.e.25.02.2013. However, at the time of arguments counsel for the OPs have placed on record that the complainant had claimed the accidental claim on many occasions and also received the claim amount. Due to the act and conduct of the complainant they have been forced to cancel the policy in question. The argument of the OPs is having much force than the version of the complainant.

                It is clearly established on the case file that Annexure R1 dated 17.01.2013 qua cancellation letter regarding policy in question and same was sent to the complainant through post vide annexure R2, postal receipt at the address given by the complainant to the OPs at the time of taking the policy. As per Annexure R3 letter for refund of the premium sent through postal receipt dated 20.03.2013. So, we can easily presume that the notice has been served upon the complainant by complying Clause 5 of the conditions of the policy which gives right to the Ops to cancel the policy after giving seven days notice which the OPs have done in the present case. The complainant has not been able to prove on case file that the OPs have been in deficient in providing service, therefore, present complaint deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the present complaint is hereby dismissed. However, the complainant will be entitled for the balance amount lying in his floated account subject to fulfillment of the formalities as mentioned in Annexure R3. Parties will bear their own expenses. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.

 

Announced on: 13.07.2017

                                                               

PUSHPENDER KUMAR      ANAMIKA GUPTA        D.N. ARORA MEMBER                                MEMBER                        PRESIDENT