Haryana

StateCommission

A/409/2016

REJENDER PAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

BAJAJ ALLIANZ INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

Y.D.KAUSHIK

24 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

 

First Appeal No  :      409 of 2016

Date of Institution:     11.05.2016

Date of Decision :      24.10.2016

 

 

Rajender Pal son of Sh. Mahinder Pal, resident of Village Kabulpur, Tehsil and District Faridabad.

          Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      M/s Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office at SCO No.102-103, Shop No.3, Dwarka Complex, Near ICICI Bank Limited, Sector 16, Faridabad, through its Branch Manager/Principle Officer/Authorized Signatory.

2.      M/s Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, Airport Road, Yervada, Pune 411006 (Maharashtra) through its Managing Director/Directors.

3.      Mr. Madan Gopal Sharma, Authorized Agent of M/s Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Limited, Office: 418-1-419, 1^st Floor, Nehru Ground, Opposite Fortis Escorts Hospital, Faridabad.

Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                   Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

      

                                                                                           

Present:     Shri Yash Dev Kaushik, Advocate for appellant.

                   Shri Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2

                   (Service of respondent No.3 dispensed with vide order dated August 11^th, 2016)                  

 

                                                    O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated April 11^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint was dismissed.  

2.      Rajender Pal-complainant was owner of a car bearing No.HR51AK-0651.  The car was insured with Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Limited-opposite parties No.1 and 2 (for short, ‘Insurance Company’) from July 28^th, 2012 to July 27^th, 2013.  The car met with an accident on November 04^th, 2012.  The complainant spent Rs.46,499/- on its repair. He filed claim with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated on the ground that the policy was issued for third party liability and not for own damage. 

3.      Learned counsel for the complainant has urged that he paid the premium of Rs.6,229/- to get his car insured comprehensively.  So, the Insurance Company was liable to pay Rs.46,499/-, spent by the complainant on the repair of the car. 

4.      The Insurance Company wrote a letter dated August 14^th, 2012 (Annexure R/1) to the complainant stating that insurance policy would be issued after inspection of the car and the complainant was asked to get the car inspected.  It was further mentioned as under:-

          “In case you wish to withdraw your proposal, kindly inform us about the same in writing and provide us with an alternate insurance policy of your vehicle within 7 days of receipt of this letter.  In absence of an alternate policy for the vehicle proposed for insurance, we will be constrained to issue an Act only (liability to third parties) policy against the said proposal/cover note and refund the balance amount of premium which we have collected against the proposal dated 01^st August, 2012.”

5.      The complainant did not get the car inspected from the Insurance Company, so, the Insurance Company after having the premium for the third party liability, refunded the balance amount to the complainant and issued insurance policy (Annexure R/4) whereby the car was insured only for third party liability.  In view of this, it cannot be said that car was comprehensively insured.  Thus, the order under challenge requires no interference.  The appeal is dismissed.

6.      Learned counsel for the complainant has stated that the balance amount has still not been refunded by the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company be directed to pay the amount to the complainant. 

7.      In case the amount is not refunded, the Insurance Company is directed to refund the balance amount to the complainant within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of this order.   

 

 

Announced 24.10.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

(UK)