Haryana

Kurukshetra

214/2016

Rajesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz - Opp.Party(s)

Om Parkash

20 Feb 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                        Complaint no. 214/16

                                                        Date of instt.  3.8.16

                                                        Date of Order: 20.2.18.

 

Rajesh Kumar son of Sunder Lal, resident of House No.129/13, Mohalla Subhash Nagar, Shahbad Markanda, Tehsil Shahba, District Kurukshetra.  

       

                                                                                                                                                …….complainant

                          Vs.

 

1.  The Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Sector-17, Opposite Old Bus Stand, Kurukshetra, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Claims Department, SCO 14, 4^th Floor, U.E. Sector-5, Panchkula, Haryana, through its authorized signatory.
3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Registered and Head Office GE Plaza Airport Road, Yarawada, Pune, Maharashtra, through its Managing Director.

 

                                                                        ….OPs.

 

Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before:       Sh. G.C. Garg, President.    

                 Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta, Member.

                

Present:        Sh. O.P. Pruthi, Adv. for complainant.

                    Sh. Atul Mittal, Adv. for the Ops.

ORDER:

 

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Rajesh Kumar against Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager and others, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant is registered owner of a Mahindra Xylo Car bearing registration No.HR-07P/844, Engine No.21894, chassis No.67997, Model 2010 and the said vehicle was insured with the Ops vide cover note No.MC1001891395 and policy bearing No.OG-12-1207-1801-00002336 valid from 1.10.2011 to 30.9.2012 for a sum of Rs.6,28,068/-. On 23.7.2012 the above said vehicle was snatched by four persons, near Meerut Road, Karnal from driver of the vehicle Ali Jaan son of Babudeen, resident of Jandheri, District Kurukshetra and the said persons also gave severe beatings to the driver. FIR No.619 under Sections 328,394 IPC and 25-54-59 of Arms Act was registered in police station, civil line, Karnal on 6.8.2012 against the culprits. The information regarding the incident was given to the Ops and the complainant also submitted the claim along with requisite documents but the Ops did not release the claim amount. After about two and half years the above said vehicle was recovered by the police civil line, Karnal in February, 2015 in case State Vs Pushp Raj and the complainant immediately informed regarding the recovery of the vehicle by the police to the Ops telephonically. The complainant has taken the above said vehicle on superdari from the Court of JMIC, Karnal on 25.2.2015. After taking the vehicle, the complainant again informed the Ops and the Ops advised to take the vehicle at Mack Insurance Auxiliary Services Private Limited at Karnal where the vehicle was inspected by the surveyor of MACK Insurance and the engine was totally damaged and not in working condition and many other parts of the vehicle was damaged by the culprits. The complainant was asked by the Ops to take the vehicle at Shahbad nearest automobiles and the complainant took the vehicle with the help of crane for repairing the vehicle. The Ops have provided a surveyor and deputed surveyor, namely, Rajesh Chhabra for inspecting the vehicle and assessing the loss. The surveyor had inspected the vehicle and prepared the list of damaged parts of the vehicle and took the photographs and asked the complainant that he will inform about the next proceedings immediately.  The loss of estimate of the vehicle and damaged engine is about Rs.5,00,000/-. The estimate of loss of the vehicle was also supplied to the surveyor and all the formalities were also completed by the said surveyor regarding the claim of the vehicle. The complainant visited the office of Ops many a times but after many requests the Ops did not release the claim amount and lastly refused to pay the claim amount on 20.7.2016. Thus, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Hence, the present complaint was moved by the complainant claiming the claim amount of Rs.5,00,000/- of the vehicle in question, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards harassment and mental agony and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.                   Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement taking preliminary objections that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint as the policy of insurance was issued from Chandigarh where the OP is having its office and the answering OP is having no branch office at Kurukshetra; that the complaint is hopelessly time barred by limitation as the proposal for insurance was made and the policy was issued to the complainant in 2011 and the present complaint has been filed in 2016 after a gap of more than5 years; that the complainant is estopped to file the instant suit against the answering OP as the Public Utility complaint No.    /2015 filed by the complainant was dismissed as withdrawn by the complainant vide order dated 27.5.2015 and the Public Utility Adalat dismissed the said complaint and thus the suit of the complainant is prima facie and liable to be dismissed on this score only; that the vehicle was stolen on 23.7.2012 and after two and half years the vehicle was recovered by the police in February, 2015 and the complainant got the recovery of the said vehicle in February, 2015 and after the recovery of said vehicle the complainant had withdrawn the complaint with the permission for filing new complaint if his own damage claim is repudiated by the company; that no such own damage claim was registered with the company and neither it was repudiated by the answering Ops, so no cause of action accrued to the insured to file the consumer complaint. Moreover, the complainant has not intimated to the answering Ops about the damage to vehicle which is violation as per policy condition No.1. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs. On merits, contents of the complaint were denied. Preliminary objections were repeated. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

4.             Both the parties have led their respective evidence.

5.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

6.            It is undisputed that the complainant is registered owner of a Mahindra Xylo Car bearing registration No.HR-07P/844, Engine No.21894, chassis No.67997, Model 2010 and the said vehicle was insured with the Ops vide cover note No.MC1001891395 and policy bearing No.OG-12-1207-1801-00002336 valid from 1.10.2011 to 30.9.2012 for a sum of Rs.6,28,068/-. It is also undisputed that on 23.7.2012 the above said vehicle was snatched by four persons, near Meerut Road, Karnal from driver of the vehicle Ali Jaan son of Babudeen, resident of Jandheri, District Kurukshetra and the said persons also gave severe beatings to the driver. FIR No.619 under Sections 328,394 IPC and 25-54-59 of Arms Act was registered in police station, civil line, Karnal on 6.8.2012 against the culprits. It is also admitted fact that the above said vehicle was recovered by the police civil line, Karnal in February, 2015 in case State Vs Pushp Raj and the complainant immediately informed regarding the recovery of the vehicle by the police to the Ops telephonically. The complainant has taken the above said vehicle on superdari from the Court of JMIC, Karnal on 25.2.2015. The contention of the complainant is that after taking the vehicle, the complainant again informed the Ops and the Ops advised to take the vehicle at Mack Insurance Auxiliary Services Private Limited at Karnal where the vehicle was inspected by the surveyor of MACK Insurance and the engine was totally damaged and not in working condition and many other parts of the vehicle was damaged by the culprits. The complainant was asked by the Ops to take the vehicle at Shahbad nearest automobiles and the complainant took the vehicle with the help of crane for repairing the vehicle. The Ops have provided a surveyor and deputed surveyor, namely, Rajesh Chhabra for inspecting the vehicle and assessing the loss. The surveyor had inspected the vehicle and prepared the list of damaged parts of the vehicle and took the photographs and asked the complainant that he will inform about the next proceedings immediately.  The loss of estimate of the vehicle and damaged engine is about Rs.5,00,000/-. The estimate of loss of the vehicle was also supplied to the surveyor and all the formalities were also completed by the said surveyor regarding the claim of the vehicle.

7.            On the other hand, the contention of the Ops is that the complainant has not intimated to the answering Ops about the damage to vehicle which is violation as per policy condition No.1, so the complainant is not entitled for any compensation. In our view this argument has no substance at all because the complainant has placed on file photo stat copy of order dated 27.5.2015 passed by Court of Permanent Lok Adalat in which in has been specifically mentioned that lost insured vehicle has been recovered and now fresh claim has been filed before the insurance company for compensation for the damage caused to the vehicle during the period it remained untraced and this fact is also very much in the knowledge of the counsel for the insurance company. So, the plea taken by the Ops is without basis.

9.            So far as the question of the claim amount is concerned, the complainant claims the loss caused to the vehicle to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- and produce the estimate for repair of the vehicle which is not justified. However, to meet the ends of justice, we award a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in lump sum as claim amount. So, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to the said amount of Rs.3,00,000/-.

8.               So, in such like circumstances, we accept the present complaint partly and direct the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.3,00,000/-to the complainant. This order should be complied within a period of two months, failing which penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite parties and in that case also the Ops shall be liable to pay the simple interest @ 6% per annum on the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the date of order till its payment. File be consigned to record after due compliance.

                 Copy of this order be communicated to the parties.

Announced:             

Dt. 20.2.18.                                               (G.C.Garg)

                                                                President,

                                                District Consumer Disputes                                                            Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra.

 

 

 

 (Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta)                                                   

 Member