DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 575/2016
D.No._______________________ Dated: ________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
Smt. JAIVATI CHAUHAN,
W/o LATE SH. SHIV KUMAR CHAUHAN,
R/o H. No.-94, DHAKKA VILLAGE,
MUKHERJEE NAGAR, KINGSWAY CAMP,
DELHI-110054. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENE. INS. Co. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR,
BLOCK No. 04, 7th FLOOR, DLF TOWER-15,
SHIVAJI MARG, NEW DELHI-110015.
ALSO AT: REGD. & HEAD OFFICE,
GE PLAZA, AIRPORT ROAD,
YERWADA, PUNE - 411005. … OPPOSITE PARTY
CORAM: SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 30.05.2016
Date of decision: 18.03.2020
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OP under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the husband of the complainant purchased vehicle Maruti
CC No. 575/2016 Page 1 of 8
model Swift VDI BS4 M bearing Registration no. DL-5CK-5477, chassis no.MA3FHEB1S00532484 & engine no.D1342248342 and the above said car was insured with OP bearing policy no. OG-16-9906-1801-0005-4936 valid from 29.10.2015 to 28.10.2016 (mid-night) (period wrongly mentioned as 29.10.2014 to 28.10.2015 in the complaint) and the insurance was in the name of the husband of the complainant and the deceased husband of the complainant had made the complainant Mrs. Jaivati Chauhan as nominee in the policy. The complainant further alleged that the husband of the complainant expired on 02.03.2015 and after the death of her husband, the complainant has been regularly paying the premium of the policy and OP renewed the insurance of the said vehicle on 29.10.2015. On 06.12.2015, the said car of the complainant was stolen and the complainant immediately lodged the theft report in Mukherjee Nagar Police Station vide FIR No. 021642 u/s 379 IPC. Thereafter, Court of ACMM-01, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi passed an order on 17.02.2016 stating that the final report submitted by SHO, P.S. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi “the theft vehicle as untraced is acceptable by Court”. The complainant informed the insurance company vide letter dated 06.01.2016 about the theft of the vehicle and OP sent a reply dated 04.02.2016 and the contents in the reply dated 04.02.2016 that “in the event of the death of the sole insured, this policy will not immediately lapse but will remain valid for a period of 3 months from the date of the death of insured
CC No. 575/2016 Page 2 of 8
or until the expiry of the policy whichever is earlier and during the said period, legal heirs of the insured to whom the custody and use of the motor vehicle passes may apply to have this policy transferred to his/her/their names or obtain a new insurance policy for the motor vehicle.” The complainant further alleged that the abovesaid clause is not applicable upon the complainant as per the terms & conditions of the insurance policy, being not a part of insurance policy of insured vehicle and the clause in question has no relevance with the issued insurance policy and hence the complainant is legally entitled to recover the insured amount from OP against the theft of the vehicle and after the compliance of all the directions of the insurance company, the complainant failed to get the insured amount of the stolen vehicle. Thereafter, the complainant contacted OP several times for the payment of an amount of Rs.4,55,000/- as insurance claim of the vehicle but OP always avoided the complainant by assigning one reason or the other and miserably failed and neglected to pay the insured amount inspite of repeated requests and demands of the complainant. The complainant further alleged that the complainant sent legal notice dated 18.04.2016 through her Counsel to OP by Regd. A.D. but OP neither replied the same nor complied with it and the same has caused great mental tension pain, agony, harassment, inconvenience and loss to the complainant which clearly shows the deficiency in service on the part of OP.
CC No. 575/2016 Page 3 of 8
2. On these allegations the complainant filed the complaint praying for direction to OP to pay/refund the insured amount of Rs.4,55,000/- alongwith interest @ 24 % p.a. from the date of theft of the said vehicle i.e. 06.12.2015 as well as compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for damages towards causing mental, physical pain, agony and harassment and has also sought Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation alongwith interest @ 18 % p.a. on the aforesaid claimed amount from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization.
3. OP has been contesting the case and filed reply and submitted that neither insurance policy nor registration certificate is in the name of the complainant hence the complainant is not a consumer of OP and the complainant has not impleaded HDFC Bank, as the insured car was financed by HDFC Bank. OP further submitted that after the death of the insured, the loan account should have been transferred by the complainant in her own name and the insured in the policy i.e. Shiv Kumar Chauhan was the registered owner of the vehicle who expired on 02.03.2015 whereas neither insurance policy nor registration of the vehicle was got transferred in favour of the legal heirs and after the reported theft, fact has come to the notice of OP and OP bound by the terms & conditions of the policy contract rejected the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 04.02.2016. OP further submitted that the claim of the complainant has been denied being in the violation of vital terms & conditions
CC No. 575/2016 Page 4 of 8
and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
4. The complainant filed rejoinder and denied the contentions of OP. The complainant submitted in its rejoinder that the complainant has got insured the vehicle from OP and the HDFC Bank has no relation with the consumer dispute between the complainant and OP and hence the question does not arise to implead HDFC Bank in the complaint. The complainant further submitted that the condition no.9 of the terms & conditions as stated vide letter dated 04.02.2016 of OP has no relevance with the issued insurance policy and also not a part of the insurance policy of the insured vehicle.
5. In order to prove her case, the complainant filed her affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant placed on record copy of Private Car Package Policy Schedule vide policy no.OG-16-9906-1801-00054936 issued by OP, copy of FIR no.021642 dated 06.12.2015, copy of death certificate of her husband, copy of her ration card, copy of the voter ID card of her husband, copy of R.C., copy of the aadhar card of her husband, copy of her aadhar card, copy of premium receipt no.9906-00669003 dated 16.10.2015 of Rs.13,892/-, copy of repudiation letter dated 04.02.2016, copy of order dated 17.02.2016 passed by ACMM-01, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, copy of Transcript of Proposal for Private Car-Package policy with copy of terms & conditions of the policy issued by OP, copy of policy details and
CC No. 575/2016 Page 5 of 8
copy of legal notice dated 18.04.2016 sent by the complainant through her Counsel to OP by speed post alongwith postal receipts.
6. On the other hand, Sh. Dushyant K. Meena, Legal Officer of OP filed his affidavit in evidence which is on the basis of the reply of OP. OP also filed copy of Private Car Package Policy Schedule, copy of Private Car Package Policy, copy of Motor Insurance Claim Form, copy of letter dated 08.12.2015, copy of investigator report dated 24.12.2015 issued by Ashok Gosai, Investigator for Motor Theft, Investigation and copies of repudiation letters dated 30.12.2015 & 04.02.2016. OP has also filed written arguments.
7. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence of both the parties and documents placed on record by the parties. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant.
8. The investigator namely Sh. Ashok Gosai appointed by OP in his report dated 24.12.2015 clearly stated that he visited P.S. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi and met the investigating officer of the police case and also visited the premises of the complainant and in his report has not disputed the factum of theft of the vehicle and has further stated that there is no delay and IDV of the vehicle was Rs.4,55,578/- as per the policy. He further stated that the husband of the complainant died on 02.03.2015 and the vehicle was registered in the name of her husband and the policy was also in
CC No. 575/2016 Page 6 of 8
the name of her husband. Though her husband died on 02.03.2015 but the complainant has renewed the insurance policy and has regularly paid EMIs to HDFC Bank the financer. He further reported that both the keys of the vehicle and original R.C. of the vehicle lost alongwith the vehicle. However, OP has not disputed the insurance policy in respect of the vehicle of the complainant and IDV of the vehicle i.e. Rs.4,55,578/-. OP has also not disputed the factum of theft of the vehicle. It is hard to believe that the complainant will not provide the required documents to the investigator of OP. Moreover, during the proceedings of the case, the complainant has produced before the Forum the 2 keys of the lost vehicle and filed photographs of the keys and it is not expected that the complainant would not have provided the keys of the vehicle to the surveyor if the surveyor might have demanded the keys from the complainant. It is shows that OP has taken a false and bogus defence and report of surveyor cannot be believed. Thus, the exclusion clause is not attracted and OP ought not to have repudiated the claim of the complainant. Accordingly, OP is held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
9. Accordingly, OP is directed as under:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.4,55,578/- being the IDV of the vehicle and the complainant to execute transfer papers in the name of OP and to return the keys of the said vehicle to OP.
CC No. 575/2016 Page 7 of 8
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.
10. The above amount shall be paid by OP to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of payment. If OP fails to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 18th day of March, 2020.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 575/2016 Page 8 of 8
UPLOADED BY : SATYENDRA JEET
