Haryana

Ambala

CC/283/2017

Rajinder Kapoor - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

25 Jun 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

Consumer Complaint No	:	283 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	04.08.2017
Date of Decision	:	25.06.2018

Rajinder Kapoor S/o Sh.Surjit Singh, aged about 50 years, R/o V.P.O. Shahpur, Distt. Ambala.

.…Complainant

 

Versus

 

Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Ltd., SCO 156/159, Sector 9-C, 2^nd Floor, Chandigarh.

                                                                            …. Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

BEFORE:             SH.D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                             SH.PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                  

For the Parties:     Mr.Satpal Singh, Adv., for the complainant.

                        Mr.R.K.Vig, Adv., for the OP.

 

ORDER

(D.N.Arora)

 

                             Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased LED 43UH650T ATR with multimedia speaker LH64 B AIN for an amount of Rs.70,500 from the Madan Electronics vide bill memo No.12398 dated 11.10.2016 which was insured vide policy No.OG-17-1113-9930-00000003 on 11.10.2016 from the Op i.e. Bajaj Allianz on the assurance of Op that if any defect occurred during insurance period, the OP would be responsible as the LED was insured with the OP for Rs.70,490/- and the complainant was paying the EMIs regularly. Thereafter, on 23.03.2017, the LED started giving problem as it was not in working condition. The complainant approached the dealer who sent the engineer from company. After inspection, the engineer found that panel of the LED became defected and assessed Rs.22,000/- as cost of repair or replacement of LED panel. The engineer of the company told the complainant that as the LED was insured with the OP then the entire repair cost of LED would be borne by the Op and information in this regard would be sent by the company to the Op. But the Op repudiated the claim of the complainant as No Claim vide letter dated 24.05.2017 on the ground that claim fell outside the scope of the policy. This act and conduct of the Op amounts to deficiency in service on its part.

2.                                 Upon notice the Op appeared and filed written statement by taking preliminary objection such as no cause of action, bad of non-joinder, suppressed material facts and clean hands. It is submitted that the complainant approached the OP for insuring the LED and the entire terms and conditions were explained to the complainant. After understanding the terms and conditions, the complainant obtained insurance policy No.OG-17-1113-9930-00000001 from 20.04.2017 to 19.04.2018 subject to policy terms and conditions. Thereafter, the complainant intimated the claim dated 16.08.2017 with the OP by submitting the claim documents with the claim form for obtaining the compensation of expenses incurred by the complainant on account of damages to the insured TV unit and the said claim was registered as claim No.OC-17-1101-9930-00000054. After scrutinizing the documents submitted by the complainant, the OP observed that “That the complainant has misrepresented the actual cause of loss to the said LED TV unit and that the TV got damaged while cleaning the unit the said unit slipped and fell on floor” therefore, as per terms and conditions of the policy, the claim/loss did not cover under the policy. The exclusion 1(a) of the policy is as under:

            “1.       Loss or damage to the Property by or due to or arising from:

(a)     Wear and tear depreciation, moth, vermin, process of cleaning, repairing, restoring or renovating the action of light or atmospheric conditions or any other gradually operating cause.

           In view of above mentioned facts we regret to state that claim falls outside the scope of the policy, hence, we are repudiating the claim and closing the file as No Claim.”

It is further submitted that the OP has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.

3.                                 In order to prove the case, the counsel for the complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C-1 to C-9 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the Op has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R-A and documents Annexure R-1 to R-9 and closed the evidence.

4.                                 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully and minutely.

5.                                 Purchasing of LED in question Annexure C1 is not disputed.  The product in question was also insured by the OP as per claim form Annexure C3.  In para no.4 of the complaint the complainant has mentioned that the LED was working smoothly for some time and on 22.03.2017 the complainant shut down the same and on 23.03.2017 when he tried to start the same it did not work.  On the other hand the OP has stressed on the point that the defect in the product in question has occurred due to carelessness of the complainant as evident from Annexure R5 (photocopy of the conversation between the parties) wherein the complainant in response to question Sir Something got hit on the screen kya has replied that It was fallen down during cleaning.   Undisputedly, the product in question was insured with the Op and the defect in the same occurred during the subsistence of the policy but when the complainant himself could not keep the product in question properly, in that eventuality, the insurance company cannot be held liable for indemnifying the claim arising out of the carelessness of the complainant. In the present complaint, the complainant is trying to take the shelter of the benevolent provisions of the Consumer Protection Act for the wrongs done on his behalf which cannot be allowed. It is a settled principal of law that he who seeks equity must do equity with other but in the present complaint the complainant has not approached to this Forum with clean hands.  Though the complainant has come with the plea that the terms and conditions provided to him Annexure C6 does not mention the exclusion clause on which the Op is relying upon but this ground is also not helpful to the case of the complainant because the alleged defect cannot be termed as a normal wear and tear. The OP has well within its right to repudiate the claim because the policy was not covering the risk as per exclusion clause 1(a) of the policy (Annexure R8) is as under which says that Loss or damage to the Property by or due to or arising from:- Wear and tear depreciation, moth, vermin, process of cleaning, repairing, restoring or renovating the action of light or atmospheric conditions or any other gradually operating cause. If we presume that the above said condition was not provided/explained to the complainant and also the relying upon the condition by the complainant Annexure C6 that Normal wear and tear, inherent defect in the vehicle purchased but even then the complainant cannot take the shelter thereof as the defect in question cannot be termed as a normal wear and tear rather it is a major defect which occurred after falling down the product during the process of cleaning the same, therefore, the present complaint deserves dismissal.

6.                                 In view of the above discussion, this Forum has considered opinion that the present complaint is devoid of merit and according the same is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced on: 25.06.2018                                 

 

 

                             (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)     (D.N.ARORA)                                                         Member                                   President