The complainant Bibhuti Nath Mishra has filed this complaint petition against Branch Manager,  Bajaj Allianz  General Insurance Company Ltd., Employees Cooperative Society Chitragupt  Nagar Kankarbag  and two others (o.ps) for realization of Rs. 49,420/- as expenses  occurred in repair of the vehicle, Rs. 30,000/- for economic loss, Rs. 20,000/- as mental, harassment, total Rs. 99420/- with 9 % p.a. interest from the date of filing of complaint petition  till realization and litigation cost.

 The, brief, facts of the case is that complainant purchased a Pickup Van bearing  Registration No.-BR06N-2371  for his livelihood and got Insured the Vehicle from Sri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. in which condition of IMT-23 was operating. The further case is that the policy No. was  10003/31/13/1345040 and its validity  was since 12-09-2012 to 06-09-2013.  The further case is that after expiry of insurance period, the insurance Co. Sri Ram Transport Finance General Insurance Company Ltd. got insurance of the aforesaid vehicle from Bajaj Allianz  General Insurance Company Ltd. through himself but he didn’t obtaine IMT-23 scheme during renewal . The  Bima Insurance Policy No. of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company  was  OG-14-9925-1803-000073571 and the same  was valid since 07-09-2013 to 06-09-2014. The further case is that the vehicle of the complainant  met with an accident on 13-02-2014 and he informed the same to o.p Insurance Company and Insurance Company registered claim No.-OC-14-2416-1803-00000733 and appointed surveyor for survey of accidental  vehicle.  The further case is that after inspection of surveyor, the complainant  started repairing of his vehicle. The further case is that the o.p Insurance Company informed on 03-03-2014 for acceptance of Rs. 9997/- as claim amount. The further case is that on 11-03-2014, o.p further informed  the complainant  by a letter to send the bill/detail of expenditure of repairing  of the vehicle. The further case is that on 19-03-2014, the o.p informed the complainant about cancelation of his claim. The further case is that after repairing of vehicle the surveyor visited the vehicle. The further case is that the complainant provided original bill of expenditure of repairing work to the surveyor on 27-03-2014. The total expenditure in repair of the vehicle was Rs. 49,420/- The further case is that the surveyor assured the complainant that  the cheuqe of bill  will be send within 1 month. The further case is that on failure  to pay the repairing  expenses the complainant  sent an applicable on 18-06-2014 to the o.p and further legal notice on 11-08-2014, but the o.ps didn’t pay the expended amount in repairing  of the vehicle.

   The complainant has filed the following documents with the complaint petition - photocopy of    package policy- Endorsement Schedule -annexure-1, photocopy of certificate cum policy schedule annexure-2, photocopy of  bill for repair annexure-3, photocopy of  petition dated 18-06-2014 sent by   Company to Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz annexure-4, photocopy of legal notice annexure-5, photocopy of Estimated Bill of  Royal Motor works annexure-6, photocopy of letter of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Com. Ltd. to Bibhuti Nath Mishra regarding closure of claim dated 19-03-2014 annexure-7, photocopy of letter dated 11-03-2014 for submitting papers annexure-8, photocopy of letter dated 03-03-2014 asking papers to settle the claim annexure-9.

On issuance of notices o.p no. 1 & 2  Bajaj Allianz Company  appeared before the Forum and filed their w.s. on 05-01-2016 with prayer to dismiss the complaint of the complainant . It has been mentioned in the w.s. that the vehicle in question was   hypothecated  by  o.p no.-3 Sri Ram Finance Company.   As a matter of fact no terms and conditions of I.M.T rule 23  was over issued by the o.p company in favour of this applicant by way of renewal of previous policy.   It has been further mentioned that no liabilities lies in the hands of the o.p no.-2 either for the satisfaction of the claim in view of the so called I.M.T Rules 23 of the policy, and even if, it is true for sake of arguments, it is limited to o.p no.- 3 only.  It has been further mentioned that the claim was intimated on 13-02-2014. It has been further mentioned that as soon as the claim was intimated  surveyor was appointed to verify the cause of loss and assess the extent of loss. It has been further mentioned that surveyor submitted his report with his findings and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 9,997/- . It has been further mentioned that after receipt  survey report, the opponent Insurance Company on 03-03-2014 sent a letter to the Insured and advised to proceed with the repairs of the vehicle and submit final  repair Bills, Payment receipt to then which will facilitate them to get the vehicle re-inspected from their surveyor and receive final survey report. It has been further mentioned that no reply was given by insured to the said letter nor was  any documents submitted. Second Reminder was sent on 11-03-2014 seeking the submission of above requirements of the vehicle but in vain., hence, on 29-03-2014 the claim of the complainant was repudiated and closed due to non- cooperation and non-submission  of documents and the same was conveyed to the Insured through RPAD letter. It has been further mentioned that there is no deficiency in service  or unfair trade practice.

O.P. No.-3 also appeared and filed their w.s.  on   27-08-2015 with prayer to dismiss the case. It has been further mentioned in the w.s.  that the case of the complainant  is not maintainable. It has been further mentioned that the complainant has failed to repay  the agreement value as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement of loan entered into between the complainant  and o.p no.-3 and  has therefore come before this Hon’ble Forum with unclean hands. It has been further mentioned that this forum has got no jurisdiction and the same is barred by Arbitration Clause incorporated in the aforesaid loan agreement, which specifically states that all disputed matters issued relating to the said agreement, shall be adjudicated by the Sole Arbitrator to be appointed by the Respondents/o.p. It has been further mentioned that the o.p no.-3 has no concern with the insurance coverage/claim, manufacturing , sale and defect service after sale of the vehicle in question. It has been further mentioned that the complainant is a defaulter and till date the outstanding amount has to be paid by the complainant apart from the late charges and other charges as applicable. It has been further mentioned that the complainant has taken finance for the aforesaid vehicle for commercial purpose therefore his grievances, whatsoever, would not be entertained under consumer protection act 1986.

No evidence has been adduced on behalf of  o.ps.

  The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. O.P No.-2 on the ground of non cooperation non and submission of documents ( annexure-7) . It is also an admitted fact that the vehicle in question was hypothecated and financed by o.p no.-3 Sri Ram Transport Company. It is also an admitted  fact that the aforesaid vehicle was insured with o.p no.-2 Bajaj  Allianz  for the period of 07-09-2013 to 06-09-2014. The complainant has annexed  annexure-2 to prove this fact. It is  an also admitted  fact that vehicle in question was insured by o.p no.-2 company without IMT rule-23 for Insurance period 07-09-2013 to    06-09-2014 from Bajaj Allianz.  The vehicle in question met with an accident on 13-02-2014. The filing of claim before o.p no.-2 is also an admitted fact. The o.p nos.- 1 & 2 has mentioned in para-13 of their w.s. that the claim was intimated,  on 13-02-2014. It has been further mentioned that as soon as the claim was intimated, surveyor was appointed to verify the cause of loss and to assess the extent of loss. It has been further mentioned that surveyor submitted his report with  his evidence  and assessed loss to the tune of Rs. 9,997/- It has been further mentioned  in para-14 of the w.s.  that after receipt of survey report, opponent Insurance Company on 03-03-2014, sent a letter to the Insured and advised to proceed with the repairs of the vehicle and submit final  repair Bills, Payment receipt to them, which will facilitate them to get the vehicle re-inspected from their surveyor and receive final survey report. So, from the above statement of o.ps it also transpires that the vehicle in question of the complainant  received loss to some extent. The o.p  nos. 1 & 2  have  repudiated the claim of the complainant  for non submission of final bill. The complaint has produced the letter dated 11-08-2004 annexure-5 and 18-06-2014, annexure-4 with bill of repair, before issuance of these letters of the complainant,  o.ps have repudiated the claim.

The complainant has produced repair bill of Rs. 49,420/- in which repairing  cost of mudguard ( Right), headlight and paint work has also been included. As per IMT rule-23, cover for Lamps tire/tubes, mudguard bonnet / side parts, Bumper Headlight and paintwork of  damaged portion only ( for all commercial vehicle ) . The above IMT-23 is not covered in the insurance  certificate of Bajaj Allianz  ( annexure-2).  The complainant  has filed repair cost of mudguard as Rs. 6500/- Front Head Light as Rs. 3700/- headlight as  Rs. 500 in annexure -6 and Rs. 700/- for paint work of front area ( annexure-7). So o.p. Nos.  1 & 2 are not responsible to pay Rs. 11,400/- as indicated above as per policy certificate. Rest amount i.e.  Rs.  38,020/-  are remained  as repair cost and o.p no. 1 & 2 are liable  to pay the above amount.

 The complainant has filed this complaint petition on 25-11-2014 and o.p no. 1 & 2 had appeared in this case on 30-03-2015 and filed their w.s. on 07-08-2015 but they didn’t settle the claim of complainant  for the reason best known  to  them. The reason stated  in repudiation letter is not reasonable because the complaint petition  has been filed on 25-11-2014 but the o.p no. 1 & 2 failed to satisfy the claim so far, so there is deficiency  on their part.

As regards o.p no.- 3, none  appeared on his behalf to  argue the case. No evidence has been adduced on his behalf  he has submitted  his w.s. and has stated that complainant  is defaulter and till date outstanding amount has  to be paid by the complainant          apart from the late charge and other charges as applicable. He has not adduced any evidence on this point so the above fact is not proved from annexures. As submitted on behalf of complainant, it is crystal clear that at the time of accident the vehicle in question was not insured  by o.p no.-3 so o.p no. 3 is not liable for payment of  any damage cost to the complainant.

Accordingly, the complaint petition is allowed in above context   and o.p no.- 2 & 3 are directed  to pay Rs. 38,020/- /- as  repair cost of the  vehicle ,  with 7 % interest p.a  from the date of filing of complaint petition that is on 25-11-2014,  and Rs. 20,000/- as physical and mental harassment and Rs. 10,000/-  as litigation cost within two months from the date of  order, /, on failure they shall be responsible  to pay the above amount   with 8 %  p.a. interest till realization. Let a copy of this order be furnished to both the parties as per rule.