Haryana

Kaithal

226/20

Kamal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Finance - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Amit Kaushik

10 May 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.226/2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 04.08.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:10.05.2023.

Kamal Singh son of Sh. Sohan Lal r/o Gali No.10, Karnal Road, Janakpuri Colony, Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Bajaj Finserv Building, Ist Floor Behind Weikfield IT-Park, Viman Nagar, Pune-411014 through its concerned authority.
2. Bajaj Fllianz 6-A/3, Plot No.768, Krishana Bhawan Oppolo Clinic, 2^nd floor, Janakpur, 110058 Delhi through its concerned authority.

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Amit Kaushik, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                OP No.1 exparte.

                Sh. C.L.Uppal, Advocate for the OP No.2.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Kamal Singh-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant purchased an online insurance policy bearing No.OG-19-9906-1801-00121216 from the OPs valid for the period w.e.f. 02.02.2019 to 01.02.2020.  On 27.05.2019 when the complainant was coming from Patiala to Kaithal and reached at near Village Kangthali, then suddenly the said car got burnt.  The said car fell down in dig and was totally burnt.  The complainant informed the Police Department and Fire Brigade Department immediately.  Intimation was also given to OPs.  The complainant lodged a DDR No.14 dt. 28.05.2019 regarding the above-said incident in P.S.Siwan, Distt. Kaithal.  The surveyor was appointed by the OPs.  The surveyor assessed the value of the damaged vehicle on the total loss of Rs.17,78,827/- as estimated by the Lekh Raj Enterprises, Ambala Road, Kaithal.  The complainant lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents but the OPs did not settle the claim of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

2.             Upon notice, the respondent No.2 appeared before this Commission, whereas respondent No.1 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 15.01.2021 passed by this Commission.  OP No.2 contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Commission.  The true facts are that after receiving intimation from the complainant, the answering OP sent letter dt. 07.06.2019 to the complainant that the insurance company wants some requirements to be fulfilled by the complainant which is mentioned in the letter dt. 07.06.2019 within seven days from the date of issuing the letter; that again on 17.06.2019 the insurance company sent letter dt. 17.06.2019 to the complainant that the answering OP has not got any response till date with subject to fulfillment of some requirements as mentioned in the letters dt. 07.06.2019 and 17.06.2019; that after intimation from the complainant, the answering OP informed the complainant that “As per service history of the vehicle was not well maintained at the material time of accident, your goodself had left the vehicle unattended after the loss and therefore, it was gross negligence on your part, hence reason for fire incident could not be conducted with available evidence”.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C12 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.             On the other hand, the respondent NO.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R7 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased an online insurance policy bearing No.OG-19-9906-1801-00121216 from the OPs valid for the period w.e.f. 02.02.2019 to 01.02.2020.  It is argued that on 27.05.2019 when the complainant was coming from Patiala to Kaithal and reached at near Village Kangthali, then suddenly the said car got burnt.  The said car fell down in dig and was totally burnt.  The complainant informed the Police Department and Fire Brigade Department immediately.  Intimation was also given to OPs.  It is further argued that the complainant lodged a DDR No.14 dt. 28.05.2019 regarding the above-said incident in P.S.Siwan, Distt. Kaithal.  The surveyor was appointed by the OPs.  The surveyor assessed the value of the damaged vehicle on the total loss of Rs.17,78,827/- as estimated by the Lekh Raj Enterprises, Ambala Road, Kaithal.  The complainant lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents but the OPs did not settle the claim of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents.

7.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.2 has argued that after receiving intimation from the complainant, the OP No.2 sent letter dt. 07.06.2019 to the complainant that the insurance company wants some requirements to be fulfilled by the complainant which is mentioned in the letter dt. 07.06.2019 within seven days from the date of issuing the letter.  It is further argued that again on 17.06.2019 the insurance company sent letter dt. 17.06.2019 to the complainant that the  OP No.2 has not got any response till date with subject to fulfillment of some requirements as mentioned in the letters dt. 07.06.2019 and 17.06.2019.  It is further argued that after intimation from the complainant, the OP No.2 informed the complainant that “As per service history of the vehicle was not well maintained at the material time of accident, your goodself had left the vehicle unattended after the loss and therefore, it was gross negligence on your part, hence reason for fire incident could not be conducted with available evidence”.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2.

8.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.  The contention of OP No.2 is that vide letter dt. 07.06.2019, some documents were demanded from the complainant and has taken the objection that vide letters dt.17.09.2019 and dt. 07.10.2019 as per Annexure R2 and Annexure-R3 respectively that as per service history record of the vehicle was not well maintained at the material time of accident and the complainant left the vehicle unattended after the loss  but the OP No.2 has failed to produce any postal receipt or other document on the file from which it could be proved that they have sent the aforesaid letters to the complainant.  The Op No.2 has also failed to produce any document from which it could be clear that the complainant had left the vehicle unattended or not well maintained.  In the present case, the provisional survey report was conducted on 28.05.2019 as per report Annexure-R6 and in the said report, the surveyor has mentioned in the column of description of loss that “Total vehicle got fire location” and given comments that “It is a fire loss in which vehicle was inspected in completely burnt condition on spot.”  In the present case, the complainant got lodged DDR No.14 dt. 28.5.2019 in P.S.Siwan as per Annexure-C10 from which it is clearly mentioned that on 27.05.2019 when the complainant was coming from Patiala to Kaithal and reached at near Village Kangthali, then suddenly the said car got burnt.  The complainant has also supported his case by Fire Brigade Report, which is Mark-B on the file.  It has come into knowledge of this Commission that the OPs insurance company does not settle the petty and genuine claims of the customers whereas drag them to knock the doors of the court which clearly amounts to deficiency in service as-well-as unfair trade practice on their part and thereby harass the innocent and poor customers unnecessarily.  So far as the demand of documents by the OP No.2 from the complainant vide letter dt. 07.06.2019 as per Annexure-R1 is concerned, some documents have already been attached with the surveyor report and other documents are demanded by the Op No.2 without any reason.  So, we are of the considered view that the Op No.2-insurance company has wrongly repudiated the claim of complainant.

9.             Thus, as a sequel of aforesaid discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay the insured amount of Rs.4,96,935/- as per Mark-A within 45 days from today and further to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of physical harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant.  However, it is made clear that the complainant shall submit the salvage, if any, with the OP No.2 and salvage will be the property of insurer.  It is also made clear that if OP No.2 is failed to pay the aforesaid awarded amount of Rs.4,96,935/- to the complainant within stipulated period, then they shall be liable to pay interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of this order till its realization.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted according against OP No.2-insurance company and dismissed against Op No.1.             

 10.           In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondent-OP No.2 shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:10.05.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.