DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,GUMLA

                                                Consumer Complaint Case Filed on – 10-05-2022

Consumer Complaint Case Last Hearing on-01.04.2023

Final Order Passed on -13.04.2023

1. Falindra Sahu, S/o Late Pakalu Sahu, R/o- Vill- Hanslata, P.O Karaundi, P.S. +  Distt.- Gumla.                     - Complainant

                                                Vrs.

1. The Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Pranami Heights 5th Floor, Circular Road, Near Lalpur Chowk, Ranchi.
2. Basant Kumar,  Insurance Agent Co-operative Complex Jashpur Road Gumla

•   Opposite Parties                                                                                                                                                                                                          

Shri Om Prakash Pandey                 President

Smt. Sarla GanjhuMember

Syed Ali Hasan Fatmi Member

On behalf of the Complainant-Sri. Baldeo Parsad Sharma

On behalf of the Opposite Party No-1Sri Phani Bhushan Sinha

On behalf of the Opposite Party No-2 Rakesh Ranjan

    ORDER

                  (1) The instant Consumer Complaint Case has been filed by one Falindra Sahu, S/o Late Pakalu Sahu, R/o- Vill- Hanslata, P.O Karaundi, P.S. +  Distt.- Gumla in this District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gumla against the Opposite Party i.e.  The Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Pranami Heights 5th Floor, Circular Road, Near Lalpur Chowk, Ranchi  and Banant  Sahu,  Insurance  Agent Co-operative Building Jashpur Road  Gumla, on the basis of complaint filed on dated 10.05.2022 in this District Commission.

                    (2)  The brief facts of this consumer complaint of the complainant is that the complainant is the registered owner of the Piaggio Tempo having its registration No- JH07E 4040. Further it is the case of the complainant that the said Tempo was insured vide Policy Schedule of the opposite party No-1 i.e. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd Pranami Heights 5th Floor, Circular Road, Near Lalpur Chowk, Ranchi. The validity of the said policy was 24- Jan-2020 to mid night of 23-Jan 2021. Further it is the case of the complainant that on dated 06.02.2020, the complainant of this case parked his Tempo in front of his house and in the mid night some unidentified persons committed the theft of said Tempo. Further it is the case of the complainant that he searched the said Tempo, but no clue was found then registered a case of theft of the said Tempo on 11.02.2020 in Gumla Police station registered as  P.S  Case No- 55/2020, dated  on 11.02.2020  U/s 379 IPC. Further it is the case of the complainant that he informed the insurance company regarding the theft of the his Tempo and submitted the relevant documents, but the opposite party no-1 i.e. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd repudiated his claim on dated 05.08.2020, thereafter, the complainant of this case has filed this consumer complaint in this District Commission against the opposite parties with following prayers:-

                    I. To pass an order or degree in favour of complainant and against the opposite parties for the sum of Rs. 90,050/-(Rupees Ninety Thousand & Fifty) for the insurance claim.

                    II. To pass an award or degree in favour of complainant and against the opposite parties for the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) on account of mental and physical agony   and towards the cost of litigation expenses.

                    III. To pass any or further order as this commission fits proper under the facts and circumstances of this case.

3. The case of the complainant was admitted on 21.03.2022 and thereafter notices were issued to opposite parties. The Ld.Counsel on behalf of the opposite parties appeared and filed the written statement. The complaint of the complainant was resisted by both the opposite parties by filing the separate written statement. As per the written statement filed on behalf of the opposite party no-1 i.e.  The Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Ranchi, it is the case of this opposite party that present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as no cause of action has ever existed in favour of complainant and against the company and hence, the present complaint case is liable to be dismissed.  Further it is submitted that the present complaint is barred by the principle of waiver, estoppels and acquiescence. Further it is submitted that there is no any deficiency in service by this opposite party U/s 2 (6) (iii) &section 2(11) of the C. P. Act 2019, hence, this opposite party is not liable at all. Further it is stated that the opposite party issued a policy bearing No- 0G-20-2406-1803-00009653 which was valid from 24.01.2020 to 23.01.2021subjcet to terms and conditions thereof. It is also the case of this opposite party that the complainant wrote a letter to insurance company and informed about the theft and has admitted that the lock of the said vehicle was faulty and was not working and the vehicle was not locked on the day of said incident.  Further it is submitted that  it is a gross  negligence on the part of complainant as complainant has violated the policy terms and conditions  as mentioned in Para 4 of the terms and condition. Further it is the case of this opposite party that the insurance company wrote a letter on 05.08.2020 and seeks complainant’s reply but no reply was given by complainant. Further it is the case of this opposite party that thereafter vide letter dated 13.08.2020, this opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant on the basis of non-cooperation and non-submission of relevant documents.

In the light of the above submissions, the Ld. Counsel on behalf of the opposite party no-1 prays to dismiss this consumer complaint filed by the complainant with cost.

4. On behalf of the opposite party no-2 i.e. The Insurance Agent, namely Basant Sahu, it is the case of this opposite party that he is the agent of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. who has done all the paper works for the insurance of the said vehicle and therefore, he is not liable to pay the compensation to the complainant.
5.  After filing the written statements by both the opposite parties, the case fixed for the evidence. Thereafter, on behalf of the complainant of this case and opposite party no-1 i.e. Branch Manager Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd witnesses examined.
6. The complainant of this case to establish his case has examined altogether two witnesses by way of an affidavit. The witnesses examined on behalf of complainant are as follows:-

1. Banwari Sahu has been examined as witness no-1.
2. Falindra Sahu, the complainant of this case has been examined as witness no-2. 

Apart from the oral evidence, the complainant has also produced some documentary evidence, which have been marked exhibits as follows:-  

1. Certificate cum Policy Schedule has marked exhibit -1.
2. Certified Copy of First Information Report has been marked exhibit-2.
3.  Certified copy of written information to officer In-charge of Gumla Police Station has been marked exhibit-3.  
4. Final report submitted by the investigating officer in respect of Gumla P. S. case No55/2020 has been marked exhibit-4.

7. On behalf of the opposite party no-1, the examination-in-chief of witness namely, Abhinit Verma has filed by way of an affidavit and some documentary evidence have been brought on the record and the same have been marked exhibits as follows:-

1. Commercial Vehicle Package cum Policy Schedule has marked exhibit- A.
2. Terms and condition of vehicle package policy has marked exhibit –B.
3. Written information to the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd by the complainant regarding the theft of his Tempo has marked exhibit –C with objection.
4. Whereas letter dated 13.08.2020 to the complainant by the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd has marked exhibit-D and letter dated 24.07.2020 to the complainant by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. has marked exhibit- D/1.

8. Ld.Counsel on behalf of the complainant during the course of the argument has submitted that the tempo of the complainant was insured with policy schedule by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. and period of the insurance was from 24.01.2020 to 23.01.2021. Ld. Counsel on behalf of the complainant has also submitted that the said vehicle was parked in front of his house on dated 06.02.20202 and in the night of that day some unidentified persons committed the theft of the said Tempo, for which a theft report was registered in Gumla P. S. as case no 55/2020 U/s 379 IPC. On dated 11.02.2020. Further it is submitted that just after the said incident the complainant informed the insurance company along with relevant documents but in spite of submitting the relevant documents his claim was repudiated by opposite party No-1 on dated 13.08.2020.
9.  Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No-1 during the course of his argument has submitted that the said vehicle was insured with policy schedule with this opposite party but the complainant
10. has violated the terms and conditions of the said policy.  Ld. Counsel further submitted that the complainant of this case was careless and negligent and he had parked the said vehicle in open field knowing this fact that the lock of the said Tempo is faulty. It is also submitted that regarding the said incident the complainant has informed this insurance company after more than 48 hours and also not co-operated with this insurance company and also not submitted the relevant documents. It is also submitted that the complainant of this case was driving the vehicle without driving License. Therefore, this insurance company i.e. opposite party No-1 repudiated the claim of the complainant.
11. We have also heard the argument advanced on behalf of Ld.Counsel of the opposite party no-2, who has only submitted that this opposite party is the agent of the company. We have carefully heard the Ld.Counsel on behalf of the complainant and also heard the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of both the opposite parties of this case.

                    (11) The points for determination in the case before this District Commission are as follows:

1.  Whether this consumer complaint Case has been filed within the limitation period?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the compensation from the opposite parties. If so, then for what amount?
3. What other order?

Point No -I

                    (12)  This point has taken first for its adjudication. The instant Consumer Complaint Case has been filed by the complainant, namely Falindra Sahu, on dated 10.05.2022 against the opposite parties of this case in this District Commission. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that his piaggio auto Tempo was stolen by unknown thief on dated 06.02.2020 in the night. The vehicle was insured vide policy schedule by the opposite party No-1 i.e. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. and the validity of the said Policy was 24.01.2020 to midnight of 23.01.2021.   From going through the evidence adduced by the complainant by way of an affidavit this fact has been admitted in his evidence. From going through the documentary evidence we find that a theft report was registered in respect of theft of the said tempo by Dilip Sahu who is the son of the complainant on dated 11.02.2020. The investigating officer submitted the Final report which has been marked exhibit 4. When we gone through the written statement filed by opposite party No-1, we find that regarding the repudiation of claim by this opposite party, it is admitted in Para 14 of written statement. Thus, it is quite evident that the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the said insurance company on dated 13.08.2020. Thereafter, the complainant has filed this complaint in this District commission on dated 10.05.2022 which is within two years when the cause of action arose to the complainant. On the basis of above discussions, we find that this consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant within two years when the cause of action arose to the complainant. Therefore on the basis of above discussions Point No (I) is decided in favour of complainant.

Point No-II & Point No-III

                      (13)  These two points are interlinked with each other, therefore these two points are taken together for its adjudication. The complainant of this case namely Falindra Sahu, in support of his complaint case has produced two witnesses before this District Commission by way of an affidavit.  Banwari Sahu has been examined as witness No-1. Whereas, Falindra Sahu, the complainant of this case has been examined as witness no-2.  The evidence of these witnesses have been produced by way of an affidavit. The complainant in Para 3 of the examination-in-chief has stated that on 06.02.2020, he kept his tempo in front of his house. Further in Para 4, he has stated that on the next day, he found that the said Tempo was not there. Then, on 11.02.2020, his son registered a police case regarding the theft of the Tempo registered as Gumla P.S. Cases No 55/2020 U/s 379, IPC.  In Para 5 this witness has stated that he informed the opposite party i.e. Bajaj Allianz General Co. Ltd regarding the theft of the said Tempo and submitted the relevant documents. In Para 6 of his in examination-in-chief on an affidavit, he has stated that the period of policy was from 24.01.2020 to 23.01.2021 midnight.  In cross-examination by opposite party no-1 this witness has stated that regarding the theft of the said Tempo after three to four days of the incident he informed the police. In Para 14, this witness has stated that his Tempo was being driven by his son. In Para 15, he has stated that no permit was issued in respect of

the said vehicle. The witness No-1, Banwari Sahu in his examination –in- chief on an affidavit has fully supported the entire factum of this consumer complaint. In Para 3 of his examination –in-chief on an affidavit he has clearly stated that some unidentified thief committed the theft of the said Tempo bearing its registration no-JH07E 4040 in the night of 06.02.2020.  The factum of the theft of the said Tempo of the complainant has also find supports from the documentary evidence i.e. exhibit 2. The F.I.R. of theft of Tempo dated 11.02.2020 lodged by Dilip Sahu the son of the complainant U/s 379 of IPC. The Final report submitted by the investigating officer in respect of Gumla P.S. Case No-55/2020 dated 11.02.2020 has been marked exhibit 4. On behalf of Ld. Counsel of the opposite party No-1 the evidence of Abhinit Verma has also filed by way of an affidavit. The said witness on behalf of the opposite party No-1 in his examination-in-chief on an affidavit in Para 6 has stated that opposite party i.e. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd had issued a commercial vehicle Package policy in favour of the complainant, which was valid from 24.01.2020 to 23.01.2021. Further in Para 9, this witness has stated that the complainant intimated this insurance company after 6 days of the theft of the said vehicle on 12.02.2020 and has also registered F.I.R. delayed.  In Para 11, this witness has stated that the complainant has admitted that the lock of the said vehicle was faulty and on the day of theft it was not working.  In Para 12, this witness has stated that the complainant has violated the policy terms and conditions which is mentioned in condition no-4. In the cross-examination on behalf of the Ld.Counsel of the complainant in Para 22, this witness has state that total IDV Value of vehicle is Rs.90, 050/-(Rupees Ninety Thousand Fifty) only. Apart from oral evidence, some documentary evidence has also brought on behalf of this opposite party which has been marked exhibit A, B, C, D, and D/1 respectively.  Exhibit A is the commercial vehicle package cum policy schedule in respect of the vehicle bearing its registration no- JH07E 4040. When we go through the policy schedule we find that the period of the insurance was from 24.01.2020 to 23.01.2021 whereas, the alleged occurrence took place on 06.02.2020, which shows that at the time of alleged occurrence the policy of the said vehicle was valid. Exhibit B is the terms and conditions of the policy schedule of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Exhibit D/1 is the letter of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd the opposite party of this case sent to the complainant namely, Falindra Sahu dated 24.07.2020, in respect of repudiation of the claim.

                      (14)  From going through the evidences brought on the record by both the sides oral as well as documentary evidences we find that regarding the theft of the said vehicle of the complainant on dated 06.02.2020, there is no any dispute. Further it is also admitted that a theft report was lodged on 11.02.2020 (vide exhibit 3) which is the written information given by Dilip Sahu, the son of the complainant to officer in-charge Gumla P.S. on dated 11.02.2020 regarding the theft  of his Tempo bearing its registration no JH07E 4040. Thereafter, Gumla P.S. case no- 55/2020 dated 11.02.2020 was registered U/s 379 IPC. These two facts have well proved by the evidence adduced by the complainant and his sole witness. When we go through exhibit- 1 i.e. certificate cum policy schedule issued by the opposite party No-1 i.e. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd in respect of the vehicle bearing its registration no JH07E 4040 of the complainant, we find that the said vehicle was insured by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. which is the opposite party and the period of the insurance was from 24.01.2020 to 23.01.2021.  From going through the evidence of the complainant which has been brought  on the record by way of an affidavit we find that in Para 5 he has specifically stated regarding the theft of the said Tempo which also corroborated  by exhibit C which is the information given to opposite party i.e. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd by the complainant  From going through the said exhibit C we find that the complainant of this consumer complaint has submitted original registration certificate book, original  key, original fitness certificate, original pollution certificate and photocopy of Tax Token. There is no any denial by the opposite party in respect of submitting the said document. So, on the basis of the above legal material we find that after the said occurrence regarding the theft of the tempo the complainant has submitted the relevant documents for insurance claim.

                      (15) Ld. Counsel on behalf of the opposite party no-1 during the course of an argument has submitted that the complainant has intimated the said insurance company after 6 days of the theft of the vehicle and has also violated the terms and conditions of the policy schedule.

                      So far the said contention of the Ld. Counsel is concerned; we find that the son of the complainant after the theft of the vehicle lodged a police case regarding the theft of his vehicle which is also corroborated by exhibit 3, which is the written information given by Dilip Sahu on dated 11.02.2023. We find here that the police has investigated the case and came to conclusion that no clue has been find out regarding the theft of the said vehicle. Thereafter the final report was submitted on 22.05.2020 which is exhibit 4. The said vehicle was parked nearby the complainant house and the complainant has also intimated the insurance company immediately. Immediately meaning by as early as possible.  In so many cases the Hon’ble Apex has held that only delay in intimation of the stolen properly to the insurance company does not give rise to the rejection of the insured when it is genuine one. In this consumer complaint police has lodged the case and the investigating officer submitted the final report (Exhibit 4), coming to the conclusion that no clue has been find out. On the basis of these discussions, we find that this contention of the Ld. Counsel of opposite party No-1 about the delay intimation in respect of the said theft has not got any legal force.

“The Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Om Prakash Vs. Reliance General Insurance Company and others (2007) CPJ 10 (SC) has held  “ That the repudiation of Insurance claim in mechanical way should not be done.”

          Further the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd .Vs. Nitin Khandelwal (2008) CPJ1(SC) has also held as under, “ That if it is presumed that there is violation of any condition even then the Insurance Company shall decide the claim of the claimant on the basis of  non-standard.”

                      (16)  Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No-1 has also placed an argument that the complainant of this case has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance company.

          So far the terms and conditions of the insurance company is concerned which deals with the “theft” or criminal act other than the “accident” it provides that in case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under the policy, the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and cooperate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender. The object behind giving immediate notice to the police appears to be that if the police is immediately informed about the theft or any criminal act, the police machinery can be set in motion and steps for recovery of the vehicle could be expedited. In a case of the theft, the insurance company or a surveyor would have a limited role. It is the police, who acting on the FIR of the insured will be required to take immediate steps for tracing and recovering the vehicle.

          It is further to be noted that, in the event , after the registration of an FIR , the police successfully recovering the vehicle and  returning the same to the insured , there would be no occasion to lodge a claim for  compensation on account of the policy. It is only when the police is not in a position to trace and recover the vehicle and the final report is lodged by the police after the vehicle is not traced; the insured would be in a position to lodge his claim for compensation.

          (17) Here, we find that the complainant has lodged the FIR after theft of his vehicle and police has submitted final report regarding the theft of the vehicle as clueless (exhibit 4). The contention of the theft is genuine one. So, in our considered view that breach of terms and conditions is not too much important or valuable from which the whole claim can be crushed by the insurance company. Therefore, this contention of the Ld. Counsel is also not sustainable in the eye of the law.

          (18) Thus, on the basis of above discussions of the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the complainant and also by the opposite party No-1, we hold the said opposite party No-1 i.e. The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Pranami Heights 5th Floor, Circular Road, Near Lalpur Chowk, Ranchi is liable to indemnify insured for the loss of his Piaggio Tempo having its registration no –JH07E4040 due to theft of the said vehicle which occurred in the night of 06.02.2020 by some unidentified thief. Therefore, on the basis of the some technical ground, the repudiation of the claim is not justified.

          (19) On the basis of the above discussions, these two points i.e. Point No ii& Point No-iii are also decided in the favour of the complainant. Here, we find that this instant Consumer Complaint case is maintainable and complainant of this case is entitled to get the compensation from the opposite party No-1 of this case.

          (20) Therefore, it is hereby ordered that

          (i) The opposite party No-1 i.e.  Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Pranami Heights 5th Floor, Circular Road, Near Lalpur Chowk, Ranchi is directed to pay the complainant 75% of the Total IDV Value of the said vehicle, i.e. (Rs. 90,050/-) (Rupees Ninety Thousand & Fifty) only which comes to Rs. 67,537/-(Sixty Seven Thousand Five Hundred &Thirty Seven) only and deposit the said amount in the account of the complainant of this case along with 5% simple interest from the institution of this case i.e. from May 2022 till its payment.

          (ii) The opposite party No-1 is also directed to pay the complainant Rs 5,000.00/-(Rupees Five Thousand) only for mental and physical suffering along with Rs 5,000.00/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only as litigation cost.

          (iii) The said opposite party is directed to pay the said amount within 60 days from the date of this order otherwise they have to pay 7% ( Nine Percent) interest on the said amount till its realization.

                   (21) Office to supply copy of the order free of cost to all the parties of this consumer complainant.