Delhi

North East

RBT/CC/156/2022

BAL MUKUND SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

BAJAJ ALLIANZE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

18 Mar 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

RBT/Complaint Case No.156/22

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Bal Mukund Singh, S/o Sh. Anant Bahadur Singh, R/o 4820-22, Gali Katra Mitra Wali, G.T Road, New Delhi 110077	Complainant
	Versus
	M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Through its Manager Block No. 04, 7th Floor, DLF Tower, 15 Shivaji Marg, New Delhi 110015	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

26.12.2018 23.01.2024 18.03.2024

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, Member

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant was the owner of the vehicle bearing no. DL 1R TA 9268 and the same was insured with Opposite Party vide policy no. OG-17-1149-1803-00007946. The period of the said policy was from 22.04.2017 to 21.04.2018. Complainant stated that he paid an amount of Rs. 20,813/- to the Opposite Party against the policy and the said policy was in the name of the Complainant. Complainant stated that as per the terms and conditions, Opposite Party had to pay the claim amount as well as repair of the said vehicle. Complainant stated that the insured vehicle met with an accident and an FIR bearing no. 459/17 had been lodged in P.S Hauz Khas. The said vehicle was seized by the concerned police and the same was in the custody of P.S Hauz Khas. Complainant stated that policy holder being the owner of the said vehicle moved an application for releasing of the said vehicle on superdari. After investigation and after perusal of the police report, Hon’ble Court had released the said vehicle to the policy holder. The Complainant had deposited Rs. 10,000/- for repairing of the said vehicle. It is stated that the Opposite Party did not settle the claim. It is prayed that Opposite Party may be directed to settle the claim and get the vehicle repaired.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the Complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle in question on the date of accident as he had already sold the said vehicle to one                Shri Kalpnath Maurya. It is stated that the intimation of the loss was given to the Opposite Party after 96 days of the incident. It is stated that under these circumstances the complaint is not maintainable.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his evidence by way of affidavit, wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5. Despite giving several opportunities, Opposite Party has failed to file its evidence. Therefore, evidence of Opposite Party was closed vide order dated 21.12.2022.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party to address the arguments. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant. The case of the Complainant is that his vehicle has met with an accident and the Opposite Party did not settle the claim for repair of the car despite the fact that on the date of accident the vehicle was having a valid insurance policy issued by the Opposite Party. The defense of the Opposite Party is that on the date of incident, the Complainant was not having any insurable interest as he had already sold his vehicle to Shri Kalpnath Maurya and its case is also that the intimation of the loss/accident was given to it after 96 days of the accident. However, in order to prove its defense the Opposite Party did not lead any evidence. Therefore, the defense of the Opposite Party cannot be believed. It is an admitted fact that on the date of incident the registered owner of the car in question was Complainant which is also mentioned in the copy of the registration certificate of the car. It is also admitted that the car met with an accident and on the date of accident the car was covered under insurance policy issued by the Opposite Party. The Complainant has filed job sheet and receipt of Rs. 10,000/- paid by him to Magic Auto Pvt. Ltd.
7. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. Opposite Party is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. Opposite Party is also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
8. Order announced on 18.03.2024.

              

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)	(Adarsh Nain)	(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)	(Member)	(President)