DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No.331 of 5.9.2017

                                      Decided on:         9.2.2021

Karamjit Singh son of Bakshish Singh, resident of village Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                       Versus

1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd.Office: GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune-411066 through its Managing Director.
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.SCO No.156-159, 2^nd Floor, Sector 9-C,Chandigarh through its Managing Director.
3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office: Sheetal Complex, Rajbaha Road, Patiala through its Managing Director.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member 

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Sachdev Vij,counsel for the complainant.

                                      Sh.Amit Gupta, counsel for OPs.                                 

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Karamjit Singh  (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) .
2. Brief facts of the case  are that the complainant is owner of car make Renault Duster, Sub Type RXCAWD, Model 2014, bearing registration No.PB-11-BT-5400 having engine No.D038210 and chassis No.A001322.The complainant got the vehicle in question insured with the OPs for the period from 29.3.2016 to 28.3.2017 vide cover note No.DY1302654670 and policy No.OG-16-1214-1801-00001085.
3. It is averred that on 19.11.2016 the car in question met with an accident within the limits of village Hardaspur,Tehsil and district Patiala and badly damaged. At that time the car was being driven by Inderjeet Singh @ Harman Singh s/o Sewa Singh.
4. It is averred that the complainant being out of country so intimation to the OPs was given by his driver. The vehicle was removed from the spot at the instance of local police for smooth runway of traffic.FIR No.0360 dated 20.11.2016 under Sections 279,427,337,304A IPC was lodged with P.S.Tripuri, Patiala. Thereafter coming back India on 30.11.2016, complainant approached the OPs and handed over the relevant documents but  the  complainant was astonished on receipt of letter dated 27.3.2017 from the OPs whereby they demanded the documents and also stated that the vehicle was removed from the spot without their consent. The complainant duly replied this letter vide letter dated 10.4.2017 enclosing  all the relevant documents but even then the OPs failed to pay the claim amount. The complainant also got served legal notice dated 30.5.2017 upon the OPs requesting for the release of the claim amount but no heed was paid by the OPs. There is thus deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OPs to release the claim amount of Rs.8,00,000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of accident; to pay Rs. one lac as compensation on account of mental agony, tension and harassment caused to the complainant and also to pay Rs.25000/-as litigation expenses.
5. Upon notice OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply having raised preliminary objections that the present complaint is gross abuse of process of law and is false, frivolous and vexatious, same is illegal and not tenable and is filed without any cause of action. The same is liable to be dismissed.
6. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle in question .It is submitted that the complainant intimated a claim with the OPs by submitting few claim documents which was duly processed by appointing surveyor and loss assessor, who after minutely conducted the survey of the insured vehicle  submitted the final survey report. The OPs also appointed an Investigator and as per their observations, as per the FIR made by police authorities on the next date of accident, the name of accused/driver is clearly mentioned as Harman Singh and there is no reference of Mr.Inderjit Singh or Inderjit Singh @ Harman Singh . It is further submitted that as per the insured and his driver, the son of insured namely Mr.Harmanpreet Singh was present at the date and time of alleged accident, so there is discrepancy of the name of the driver. The surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.6,96,000/-.The claim was repudiated vide letter dated 3.7.2017 being found not tenable.
7. On merits, insurance of the vehicle in question is admitted. It is submitted that the complainant gave intimation on 20.11.2016 with regard to the accidental loss of the insured vehicle on 19.11.2016 and claim No.OC-17-1203-1801-00002846 was registered by the OP and deputed IRDA approved independent surveyor Er.Damanjjit Singh who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.6,96,000/-.Due to discrepancy in the name of driver OPs south clarification vide letter dated 27.3.2017 but the complainant failed to submit any clarification and the OPs left with no option but to repudiate the claim of complainant vide letter dated 3.7.2017.There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. After denying all other allegations, the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
8. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C12 and closed the evidence.
9. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered Ex.OPA affidavit of Gandeep Singh Investigator, Ex.OPB affidavit of Sarpreet Kaur Ahluwalia, Asstt.Manager of OPs alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP11 and closed the evidence.
10. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
11. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is owner of car make Renault Duster bearing registration No.PB-11-BT-5400.The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant got the vehicle insured with the OPs from 29.3.2016 to 28.3.2017.The ld. counsel further argued that on 19.11.2016, the said car met with an accident within the limits  of village Hardaspur Tehsil and District Patiala and the car was damaged and at that time the car was being driven by Inderjit Singh @Harman Singh s/o Sewa Singh. The complainant was being out of country so the intimation to the OPs was given late. FIR dated 20.11.2016 was lodged with the P.S. Tripuri, Patiala..The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant submitted all the documents to the OPs but they wrongly repudiated the claim. The ld. counsel further argued that MACT award has been passed in favour of Sunil Gupta and another by the Ld. Tribunal, Ludhiana in the Lok Adalat. The ld. counsel further argued that licence of both Inderjit Singh and Harmanpreet Singh have been placed on the file. So the complaint be allowed.
12. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that the licence of Harmanpreet Singh was never supplied to the OPs. The ld. counsel further argued that complainant has suppressed the material facts from the Court as Inderjit Singh was not driving the vehicle and it was Harmanpreet Singh, who was driving the vehicle. So the complaint be dismissed.
13. To prove this case, Karamjit Singh has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and he has deposed as per the averments of the complaint, Ex.C1the Aadhar card of Karamjit Singh, Ex.C2 is the licence of Karamjit Singh,Ex.C3 is the insurance cover, Ex.C4 is FIR and as per FIR many persons were injured and Neelam Gupta had died.Ex.C6 is the repudiation letter, Ex.C7 is the reply, Ex.C9 is legal notice,Ex.C8,C10,C11,C12 are the postal receipts.
14. On the other hand, on behalf of OPs Sh.Gagandeep Singh, Investigator as tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA, Ex.OPB is the affidavit of Sarpreet Kaur Ahluwalia, Asstt.Manager of OPs and he has deposed as per the written reply,Ex.OP1 is the policy,Ex.OP2 is the final survey report,Ex.OP4 is FIR,Ex.OP5 is the investigation report.
15. The basic dispute in this case is about the repudiation of the claim due to non production of driving licences. The complainant has attached copy of order passed by Ld.MACT Tribunal , dated 5.10.2019. This MACT was filed by the LRs. of Neelam Gupta and other injured and the claim was allowed in the Lok Adalat for Rs.6000/- and the document has been produced by the ld. counsel for the complainant. The OPs have tendered driving licence of Harmanpreet Singh which was issued on 11.10.2012 and the validity  for transport is up to 21.6.2021 and for non transport upto 10.10.2032  and the award was passed by the Ld.Lok Adalat. So it is clear that award was passed after coming to the conclusion that driver was having valid driving licence otherwise  recovery rights would have been given to the insurance company. Legal notice was also sent to all the OPs on 30.5.2017 but no reply was filed.Ex.OP1 is the insurance policy.Ex.OP2 is the survey report and as per the survey report the net assessed loss is Rs.6,96,869/-.So it is clear that the driver was having a valid driving licence and already MACT award has been passed by the Ld.MAC Tribunal, Ludhiana. The award was only passed if the driving was having the valid driving licence otherwise recovery rights were given to the insurance company but no recovery rights have been passed.
16. So due to our above discussion, the complaint is allowed and the OPs are directed to pay Rs.6,96,869/- to the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of repudiation till realization, with no order as to costs. Compliance of the order be made by the  OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:9.2.2021         

                                           Y.S.Matta                  Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                             Member                                  President