DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, GURGAON-122001.
Consumer Complaint No: 602 of 2011. Date of Institution: 20.10.2011/08.11.2011 Date of Decision: 08.09.2015
Anil S Rao s/o Sh. Ram Chander, R/o H.No.1051-A/5, Patel Nagar, Gurgaon.
……complainant.
Versus
- Sh. Anil Rathi, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. 1 DLF Industrial Plot, 2nd Floor, Near Moti Nagar Station, New Delhi-15.
- The Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co., 3rd Floor, JMD Regent Plaza, Sikanderpur, Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon-122002.
- Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co., Regd. Office: GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune-411006 through its Managing Director.
- Aravali Auto Pvt. Ltd, Plot No.66, IDC Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon-122001 through its Manager.
.Opposite parties
Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986
BEFORE: SH.SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER
SH.SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person
Sh.Deepak Gupta, Adv for the OP-1 to OP-3.
Sh. Vinod Kumar Ambawat, Adv for OP-4
ORDER SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he got his Car (Chevrolet Spark) bearing Regd. No.HR-26-AU-4534 insured with the opposite party-insurance company vide policy No.OG-11-1102-1801-00010899 which was valid w.e.f. 26.10.2010 to 25.10.2011 with IDV of Rs.2,97,774/-. On 11.05.2011 the vehicle met with an accident and the complainant informed the opposite parties regarding the accident. The complainant got the vehicle repaired from the authorized service station i.e. OP-4 and paid a sum of Rs.78,218/- vide Invoice No.002095 dated 22.07.2011. The complainant lodged the claim with the opposite party-insurance company but the same was repudiated in an illegal manner. Thus, the opposite parties were deficient in providing services to the complainant. The complainant prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay Rs.78,218/- with interest @ 18 % p.a. and to pay compensation Rs. 1 Lac. The complaint is supported with an affidavit and the documents placed on file.
2 OPs in their written reply have alleged that the insured has violated section 1 Para 2(C) of the policy which reads as under:-
“The company shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of any accidental loss or damage whilst the insured or any other person driving with the knowledge or consent of the insured is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs.”
The police being an independent investigating agency has booked the driver of the car u/s 279/336/337/338/427 and Section 185 IPC vide FIR No.251 dated 11.05.2011. As per FIR the driver of the car i.e. daughter of complainant namely Neha was badly drunken as she first hit the wagon R then two bikes and a rickshaw thereby endangering human lives under the influence of liquor. Even the medical test of driver in hospital confirmed alcohol consumption. Breath analyzer test was also done and it reveals that she was under the influence of alcohol. Thus, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated.
3 OP-4 in its written reply has alleged that they have repaired vehicle No.HR-26-AU-4534 (Spark Car) and raised bill No.0020905 dated 22.07.2011 for a sum of Rs.78,218/-.
4 We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the opposite parties and have perused the record available on file carefully.
5 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs alleging deficiency of service on their part on the ground that the complainant got his Car (Chevrolet Spark) bearing Regd. No.HR-26-AU-4534 insured with the opposite party-insurance company vide policy No.OG-11-1102-1801-00010899 which was valid w.e.f. 26.10.2010 to 25.10.2011 with IDV of Rs.2,97,774/- and during the subsistence of the insurance policy the vehicle met with an accident on 11.05.2011 and the complainant reported the matter to the opposite party-insurance company and he got the car repaired from OP-4 and paid a sum of Rs.78,218/- and lodged the claim with the insurance company but the same was rejected in an illegal manner.
6 However, the contention of the opposite party-insurance company is that the claim has rightly been repudiated and as such the complaint be dismissed.
7 Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence placed on file it is evident that the victims of aforesaid accident which took place on 11.05.2011 filed claim petition bearing MACT Case No.49 of 2012 and the said petition was accepted by MACT and against the said judgment the insurer Bajaj Allianz (OP-2) preferred an appeal before Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh bearing FAO No.36 of 2013 in MACT Case No.49 of 2012 and the said appeal was disposed off while granting compensation to the victims. It is pertinent to mention here that the appeal of insurer was dismissed. In the said claim petition/appeal of the insurer the contention that the vehicle was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy was rejected. Therefore, in view of the verdict of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 29.11.2014 passed in FAO 36 of 2013 relating to MACT case with regard to the aforesaid accident, we hold that all the irregularities/contentions raised by the insurer (present OP-3) have been rejected and thus, there is no plausible defense in favour of the opposite party-insurance company in order to justify the repudiation order. Therefore, we hold that there was no justification in repudiating the claim of the complainant and as such non reimbursement of the claim of the complainant tantamounts to deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company.
8 Therefore, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party-Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company to reimburse the claim of Rs.78,218/- with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. The complainant is also entitled to compensation of Rs.10,000/- for harassment. He is also entitled to litigation expenses of Rs.3100/-. The opposite party-Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company shall make the compliance of the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.
Announced (Subhash Goyal)
08.09.2015 President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Gurgaon
(Jyoti Siwach) (Surender Singh Balyan)
Member Member
