Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 191.
Instituted on : 27.03.2017.
Decided on : 30.10.2018.
Rakesh Kumar s/o Sh. Bhim Singh age 35 years, R/o Village Ajaib, Tehsil Meham, Distt. Rothak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company. Ltd., Block No.04, 7th floor, DLF Tower 15 Shivaji Marg New Delhi-110015, through its Manager
- Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., c/o Bhudwar Automotives(P) Rohtak, Sonipat Road Rohtak, through its Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Devrat Dalal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Puneet Chahal, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the complaint are that he is registered owner of Chevrolet Beat nearing temporary Registration no.HR-99-7375 and the same is insured with opposite parties vide policy No OG-17-9991-1803-00000371 dated 28.10.2016 to 27.10.2017. That the temporary registration was valid upto 27.11.2016. That on 14.11.2016 the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident and get damaged completely. That complainant informed the opposite parties who appointed the surveyor to assess the loss. That complainant get repaired the vehicle from opposite party No.2 and spent Rs.250907/- on the repair of vehicle and submitted all the documents to the opposite party for releasing the claim. That it was a cashless insurance and the opposite party was liable to make the entire payment of repair to the workshop but they did not do so and the complainant had to pay the repair charges under compelling circumstances. That despite repeated requests of the complainant, claim has not been released by the OPs. That the act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint with prayer to direct the opposite parties to disburse the insured amount of Rs.395000/- including repair charges, litigation expenses and compensation for harassment as explained in relief clause.
2. On notice opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that vehicle of the complainant was insured with the opposite party. That the insured had intimated a claim with the OP on account of damage of the vehicle. That the claim was duly processed and it was observed that the said vehicle was being driven without registration at the time of accident. That the same is breach of terms and conditions of the policy and Motor Vehicle Act. That the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated vide letter dated 18.01.2017 on account of violation of policy terms and conditions on account of without permit. That insurance company is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed his evidence. On the other hand ld. counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 and closed his evidence.
4. We have gone through the averments placed on the file as well as oral arguments of both the parties.
5. In the present complaint the officials of the opposite parties had issued letter Ex.C1 to the complainant and denied the claim on the ground that at the time of accident the vehicle was plied without permit and as per terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant is not entitled for any claim. After perusal of all the relevant documents, we come to the conclusion that vehicle was purchased by the complainant on dated 28.10.2016 and a policy was issued for the period of one year i.e. from 28.10.2016 to 27.10.2017. The complainant’s vehicle met with an accident on dated 14.11.2016. The insurance policy was issued by the respondent officials against the vehicle in question for a “Passenger Car Package Policy”. The contention of the respondents is that when a certificate of insurance was issued for commercial purpose in that situation the vehicle should not be plied by the complainant without any permit.
6. After considering the above mentioned facts we came to the conclusion that vehicle was purchased on dated 28.10.2017 and there was a period of one month for registration of vehicle with the Registering Authority by the complainant. When an insurance certificate was issued by the respondent officials without any permit, in that situation prior to the completion of one month the respondent officials could not raise the present objection that the vehicle should not be plied without permit. In these circumstances the objection raised by the opposite parties is turned down. Perusal of Ex.C6 shows that the policy was issued as Zero Dep. policy i.e. nil depreciation and an extra premium of Rs.3706/- has been received by the respondent officials for this purpose. The complainant placed on record the original bills i.e. Ex.C3 which shows that an amount of Rs.250907/- has been spent by the complainant for repair of the vehicle in question. So the complainant is entitled for this amount.
7. At the time of arguments the complainant placed on record document Annexure-A i.e. Statement of Account issued by the HDFC bank and stated that vehicle in question was financed from the HDFC bank and the complainant had already deposited all the EMI’s and nothing is due against him. Perusal of the alleged statement shows that the total EMIs had already been paid by the complainant. As such it is directed that OPs shall pay an amount of Rs.250907/-(Rupees two lac fifty thousand nine hundred seven only) towards repair bill alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 27.03.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses and Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
9. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
30.10.2018. .......................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
