District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 243/2022.
Date of Institution:05.05.2022
Date of Order:.13.06.2023.
Virpal, aged about 41 years son of Shri Jai Chand R/o House No. 431, Gali No.2, Baselwa Colony, Kherikalan, Faridabad, Haryana.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited., Block NO.4, 7th floor, DLF Tower, 15 Shivaji Nagar, Delhi -15 through its Authorized person/directors.
…Opposite party
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. V.S.Badgujar, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. R.K.Sahota, counsel for opposite party.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was absolute owner of vehicle (Mahindra Bolero Maxi Truck Plu) bearing its Regn. NO/. DL-1-LAA-2733, having its chasis No. MA1ZP2EPKH1M92868, engine NO. EPH1M88514 and the above said vehicle was insured by the opposite party company bearing its policy NO. OG-20-1105-1803-00000723, valid w.e.f 22.01.2020 to 21.01.2021. The above said vehicle was got insured through the agent of the opposite party namely Mr. Vishal Kumar R/o 1486-A, Sector-29, Housing Board Colony, Faridabad and value of the vehicle was Rs.4,20,000/-. The complainant had parked his above said vehicle at night at about 02.00am outside his residence and said vehicle was theft at night on 14.03.2020 from there. Thereafter the complainant got lodged FIR No. 79, dated 14.03.2020 u/s 379 IPC with P.s.Kheripul, Faridabad. On the other hand, the complainant on the very same day met with the agent of opposite ;arty namely Vishal Kumar and narrated all the story of theft of vehicle and the complainant also handed over the copy of FIR to him. The above agent of the opposite party assured to the complainant not to worry and he would inform his company and very soon the company would take necessary action against theft of the vehicle as well as releasing the payment etc. The complainant had also informed the transport department, GNCT of Delhi, State transport Department regarding theft of his above said vehicle. The police submitted the untraced report in the above noted case and same was also submitted before the Illaka Magistrate and the statement of the complainant was also got recorded. The complainant was shocked and surprised when he received the letter dated 12.08.2020 and 21.08.2020 of the opposite party whereby the opposite party had tried to repudiate the claim of the complainant by making excuse for delay of 65 in intimating to the opposite party and the opposite party had further averred that this was the violation of terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant sent legal notice dated 12.04.2021 to the opposite party through registered post but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) release/pay the compensation of Rs.4,20,000/- to the complainant forthwith.
b) pay the interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of theft till realization of the claim of the complainant of Rs.4,20,000/-.
c) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
d) any other relief which the Hon’ble Commission found fit and proper may also be awarded to the complainant with cost of the
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant had willfully concealed letter dated 12.08.2020 and eminder letter dated 21.08.2020 whereby the complainant was given an opportunity to explain the delay of 65 days in reporting the claim to the answering opposite party. It was submitted that it was because the complainant chose to remain silent, the answering opposite party was well within its rights to repudiate the caim of the complainant since the inaction on the part of the complainant was violation of condition 1 of the policy. It was further submitted that the present case was hit by delay and latches. It was further submitted that there was an inexplicable delay of about 2 years in filing the present complaint. It was an admitted position that the loss happened on 14.03.2020 and the repudiation letters were issued on 12.08.2020 and 21.08.2020. however, the complainant had filed the present complaint only in the year 2022 i.e. after delay of almost 2 years. A bare perusal of the complaint, it was apparent that the averments made by the complainant were highly baseless, fictitious, concocted and did not had any iota of merit. The contents of the said complaint were fabricated and were not even supported with the relevant documents. It was submitted that the claims in the complaint were based on general figments of imagination of the complainant and hence should be rejected in its entirety. Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party–Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited with the prayer to: a) release/pay the compensation of Rs.4,20,000/- to the complainant forthwith. b) pay the interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of theft till realization of the claim of the complainant of Rs.4,20,000/-. c)pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . d) any other relief which the Hon’ble Commission found fit and proper may also be awarded to the complainant with cost of the
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A - affidavit of Virpal.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party Annx.A – copy of letter dated 12.08.2020, Annx.B – copy of reminder letter dated 21.08.2020, Annx.C – insurance policy with terms & conditions (colly), Annx.D – letter dated nl sent by the complainant to the insurance company, Annx.E - investigation report dated 13.06.2020,, Annx.F – claim form alongwith previous insurance policy, Annx.G – FIR, Annx. H - Form NO. 28,29 & 30., Annx.I – statement of insured – Virpal alongwith ID proof & photographs (colly), Annx. J – Statement of driver – Jai Parkash alongwith ID proof (colly), Annx.K – purchase invoice dated 22.01.2018, Annx.L – letter dated 06.06.2020 of financer – Cholamanmdlam investment & Finance Co. Ltd. alongwith statement of A/c (colly), Annx.M- last maintenance bill dated 10.07.2018, Annx. N – witness statement alongwith ID proof (colly), Annx.O – ID proof of Jai Chand father of insured, Annx. P – consent letter, indemnity bond & subrogation letter (colly), Annx. Q – declaration form alongwith ID proof & KYC document etc.(colly), Annx. R – repudiation letter dated 24.09.2020.
6. After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is allowed on non standard basis.
7. For the adjudication of the present complaint and the issue therein, we place reliance on the Supreme Court Authority Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Company in Civil Appeal NO. 2703/2010 decided on 25.3.2010.
In Amalendu Sahoo’s case, there was violations of the Terms & conditions of the policy and the insurance benefits were denied by the insurance company. In the above mentioned case, further reliance was placed by the Supreme Court on:
a). New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Narayan Prasad Appa Prasad Pathak, and
b). National Insurance Company Vs. Nitin Khandelwal
Wherein it was observed by the Apex Court that the claim could have been settled on non standard basis in the event of any breach of condition upto 40%. Once the Insurance Company has insured the vehicle for the loss caused to the insured, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner. When there is breach of the condition of the policy, the insurance company ought to have settled the claim on non standard basis.
8. Following the aforesaid guidelines, this Commission is of the opinion that the insurance company cannot repudiate the claim in toto. The complaint is allowed for claim to be settled on non standard basis.
IDV value of vehicle : Rs.4,20,000.00
Less Excess Clause : Rs. 1,000.00
: Rs.,4,19,000.00
Deduction 40% on non standard basis on total : - Rs. 1,67,600.00
Total : Rs. 2,51,400.00
9. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 2,51,400/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a to the complainant from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. This payment will be subject to the condition that the complainant will furnish the subrogation letter, cancellation of RC, affidavit, Form 29,30 and Form 35. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. File be consigned to the record room. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs.
Announced on:13.06.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
