Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company V/S Mr Narayan Rakshit

Mr Narayan Rakshit filed a consumer case on 30 Apr 2022 against Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company in the Cuttak Consumer Court. The case no is CC/93/2020 and the judgment uploaded on 06 Jun 2022.

Orissa

Cuttak

CC/93/2020

Mr Narayan Rakshit - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

P K Mohanty & associates

30 Apr 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. COINSUMER DIUSPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.93/2020

Mr. Narayan Rakshit @ Narayan

C/O:Chandrakaanta Rakshit,

At:Pota Pokhari,Polsa Sahi,

Town/Dist:Cuttack-753004,Odisha. ... Complainant.

Vrs.

The Managing Director-cum-CEO,

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company @ BAGIC

At:Bajaj Allianz House,Airport Road,

Yerawada,Pune-411006,

Maharastra,India.... Opp. Party.

Present: Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

Date of filing: 17.11.2020

Date of Order: 30.04.2022

For the complainant: Mr. P.K.Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P. : Mr. R.K.Pattnaik,Advocate.

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

The case record is put up today for orders.

The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a mobile phone handset of brand “Samsung Galaxy 450 128 Prism Crush Violet (4GB RAM) bearing IMEI No.35159511497944 using the online site of sister concern of O.P i.e.

2. The O.P has contested this case and filed his written version. It is stated by him that there is no cause of action to file the present case. It is submitted by him that in absence of any policy on record complainant miserably failed to show existence of any contract made between the insurance company and the complainant. It is also stated that in absence of policy details, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the complainant in any manner. It is also stated by him that the complainant conceals the truth and material facts as well, and also has stated that issues being complicated in nature cannot be decided before this Hon’ble Commission. The O.P has stated that there is no unfair trade practice or any sort of deficiency in service by him. Hence he prayed for dismissal of the complaint case with cost.

The complainant has filed documents in support of his case. The O.P has not filed any document.

3. Keeping in mind, the contentions of the complaint petition and that of the written version of O.P, this Commission feels it proper to settle the following issues.

i. Whether the case is maintainable?

ii. Whether non-issuance of insurance policy is deficiency in service or not?

iii. Whether the complainant is entitled to the benefits as claimed by him?

Issues No.1 & 2.

Issues no.1 & 2 are taken up together first for consideration for the sake of convenience. The complainant has purchased the mobile handset brand “Samsung Galaxy 450 128 Prism Crush Violet (4GB RAM) bearing IMEI No.35159511407944 using the online site of sister concern of O.P. i.e.

Issue No.3.

The complainant is thus entitled to get the claims advanced by him. Hence it is so ordered;

ORDER

The case is decreed against the O.P on contest. The O.P is hereby directed to pay Rs.20,999/-, the cost of the mobile handset alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from 28.10.19 when the complainant insured the mobile handset. The O.P is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the compensation to the complainant towards mental agony and harassment caused to him and to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards cost of litigation. This order is to be carried out within a month hence.