Delhi

StateCommission

FA/797/2013

SPACE SECURITIES - Complainant(s)

Versus

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GIC & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

12 Jul 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision: 12.07.2016 

 

First Appeal- 797/2013

 

(Arising out of the order dated 21.01.2013 passed in Complainant Case No. 577/2010 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (V), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi)

M/s. Space Securities,

Through its Proprietor,

Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta,

204, Amrit Chambers,

76-77, Scindia House,

New Delhi-110001.

•  

Versus

1. The Manager,

Bajaj Allianz General Company,

201-202, A, 2^nd Floor,

ITL Twin Tower,

Netaji Subhash Place,

Pitampura,

Delhi-110088.

 

2. M/s. Fahrenheit Automobiles,

68/3, Najafgarh Road.

Moti Nagar,

New Delhi-110015.

 ….Respondents

 

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act”) wherein challenge is made to order dated 21.01.2013 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (V), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi (in short, “the District Forum”) whereby the Ld. District Forum has dismissed CC No.577/2010.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of present appeal are as under:

Appellant herein i.e. the complainant before the District Forum had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act stating therein that appellant/complainant was the owner of Skoda Octavia car having Registration No.DL-2F-GT-2222.  The said vehicle was insured with respondent No.1/OP No.1 for the period 17.10.2008 to 16.10.2009.  On 10.07.2009, the aforesaid vehicle had met with an accident en-route, near Kali Mata Mandir between Dehradun and Beharigarh, as a result of which damage was caused to it.  The vehicle was towed to the nearest available workshop where the defect could not be rectified due to non-availability of spare parts. Finding no way, the appellant/complainant with the help of a crane had brought it to Delhi. The same was left with respondent No.2/OP No.2 wherein an estimate of repair was prepared.  The same was given to the appellant/complainant. 

3. On 15.07.2009, the appellant/complainant had intimated about the accident to respondent No.1/OP No.1 and also submitted its claim and also submitted the estimate report issued by respondent No.2/OP No.2 for processing the insurance claim.  Thereupon vide letter dated 10.08.2009, the respondent No.1/OP No.1 sought certain explanation.  The same was clarified by appellant/complainant vide letter dated 09.09.2009.  On 19.8.2009, the claim was repudiated and the appellant/complainant was forced to remove the vehicle from the workshop of respondent No.2/OP No.2.  Finding no alternative, the appellant/complainant sold the vehicle to Mr. Sunil Kumar Aggarwal for a sum of Rs.1,86,000/- on as is where is basis.  Thereafter the appellant had filed a complaint before the District Forum claiming the insurance amount along with compensation and litigation cost. 
4. The claim was opposed by the respondents/OPs by filing written statement wherein it was alleged that there was no deficiency on the part of respondent No.1/OP No.1 and the claim was not payable as per terms and conditions of the policy.  The insurance policy was admitted, however, it was stated that the vehicle was removed from the spot without informing the respondent No.1/OP No.1, which had deprived the respondent No.1/OP No.1 to ascertain the necessary facts relating to the accident.  It was alleged that vehicle was dismantled prior to the conducting of survey, as a result of which surveyor could not inspect the damage and loss to the vehicle. It was also alleged that the complaint was not maintainable as there was no consumer dispute and prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Both the parties had filed evidence by way of affidavits before the Ld. District Forum.
6. After hearing Counsel for the parties, Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint by observing that the vehicle in question was dismantled, as a result of which the surveyor could not inspect the damage and assess the loss.  The vehicle was also removed from the premises of the service station and was also sold away as such there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent No.1/OP No.1 and the complaint was dismissed.
7. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, present appeal is filed.
8. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Ld. District Forum has arbitrarily rejected the claim without discussing the evidence on record.  It is contended that the vehicle was sold as it was not road worthy and its value was diminishing day by day. 
9. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondents/OPs has contended that the impugned order is legal and valid and no case for interference is made out. 
10. It is the case of appellant/complainant that after the accident, the vehicle was also brought to Delhi in an accidental condition without giving any prior intimation to the respondent No.1/OP No.1.  It is also not denied by appellant/complainant that the inspection of the vehicle also could not be done because the vehicle had already been dismantled.  Thereby respondent No.1/OP No.1 was deprived of an opportunity to ascertain the necessary fact relating to the accident, cause of loss, circumstances of quantum of loss required to decide the admissibility of claim.  As per surveyor report also, damage to the car was not co-relating with cause of loss as was mentioned in the claim form.  In the present case, appellant/complainant had deprived the respondent/OP of ascertaining the loss. Further the vehicle was also removed from the service center and was sold without even informing the respondent/OP. In these circumstances, Ld. District Forum has rightly held that there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent/OP in not paying the claim.
11. No illegality is seen in the impugned order.  Appeal stands dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.

 

 

12. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum.  Thereafter, the file be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member