Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 407.
Instituted on : 13.07.2017.
Decided on : 26.07.2018.
Yashpal son of Baldev Singh r/o VPO Baliyana Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Ltd., office at DSS-65, 1ST Floor, Commercial Urban Estate-2, Delhi Road, Jindal Chowk, Hissar-125001 through its Manager.
- Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Ltd., through its branch Manager, Big Jo’s Tower, 2nd floor, A-8, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi-110034.
- Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Ltd., through its branch Manager, JMD Regent Arcade, Shop no.13,14,15, 2nd Floor, MG Road, Gurgaon-122001.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Ashok Deswal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that vehicle bearing No.HR-12W-8039 was registered in the name Jay Pal son of Baldeva @ Baldev Singh which was got insured with Bharti Axa General Insurance Company vide policy no.12014162 for the period 27.09.2015 to 26.09.2016 and the IDV of the same was Rs.461200/-. That complainant was nominated as nominee in the aforesaid policy by the insured. That aforesaid vehicle met with an accident on 28.08.2016 and was totally damaged. Intimation was given to the opposite parties. That insured Jaypal has died on 12.08.2016 and complainant being the nominee intimated about the accident in the office of opposite party. Opposite party deputed a surveyor who inspected the vehicle and submitted his report. Complainant being nominee lodged his claim and submitted all the documents with the opposite parties. Complainant also got transferred the vehicle in his name and submitted the same to the opposite parties but despite his repeated requests, opposite parties have not disbursed the genuine claim of the complainant. Hence, this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay the claim amount of Rs.461200/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that on receipt of the claim intimation, answering respondent without any delay appointed an independent surveyor who submitted his report showing the liability of Rs.304000/- on Net of salvage basis. But the vehicle in question was originally stand in the name of Jay Pal, who died on 12.08.2016 and vehicle met with loss on 28.12.2016. That answering opposite parties vide their letters have intimated the complainant to get the vehicle as well as insurance policy in his name within 90 days from the death of the insured but the complainant miserably failed to do so. Hence as per terms and conditions of the policy, complainant has no right to claim the compensation and is not entitled for any relief.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and closed his evidence. On the other hand ld. counsel for the OPs tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 and closed his evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material of the case very carefully.
5. The OPs have taken an objection regarding condition No.9 of the policy that the legal heir did not get the vehicle transferred in his name within a period of 90 days. The objection of the OP is unsustainable because by the letter dated 16.11.2016 the OP required the complainant to get the vehicle in question as well as the insurance policy transferred in his name for further moving in the claim. The letter Ex.C5 belies the objection taken by the opposite party since this letter was written at the fog end of the said condition. It seems that OPs are hell bent in dismissing the claim of the claimant on hyper technical grounds. Experience shows that Govt. agencies including the Registration Authority are slow in addressing the needs of the citizens. The present complainant is also a victim of the same. Inspite of the fact that relevant papers were supplied to the Registration Authority well in time but it addressed the claim of the complainant lazily and issued the registration certificate only on 23.02.2017. The complainant cannot be punished for the fault of the system. We have observed that the insurance companies generally take shelter of hyper technicalities to defeat the genuine claim of the insured. This Case is a perfect example of the same. The objection as such is negated.
6. Hence this complaint succeed and we award the amount of claim as assessed by the surveyor vide his report Ex.R3 i.e. to pay Rs.304000/-(Rupees three lac four thousand only) favoring the complainant and against the OPs alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 13.07.2017 till its realization and OPs shall also pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
6. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
26.07.2018.
................................................
Rajbir Singh Dahiya, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
