Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/113/2020

Amit Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Bajaj Alliance - Opp.Party(s)

Raman Tanwar

26 Sep 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSASL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

                                                                     Complaint Case No. :113 of 2020

                                                                     Date of Institution    : 10.09.2020

                                                                     Date of decision       :  26.09.2024

 

Amit Kumar son of Sh. Sube Singh R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Village Dharwan Bass, Teshil Tosham, District Bhiwani.

                                                  ...Complainant 

                                                                                                   

                                                    Versus

M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Bajaj Finserv Building, 1^st Floor, behind Weikfield, IT Park, Viman Nagar, Pune (Maharashtra) -411014 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.

...Opposite party

 

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,2019.

Before: -       Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

                    Ms.  Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

Present:        Sh. Raman Tanwar, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Rajender Verma, Advocate for OP.

 

                                                  ORDER

 

Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

 

1.                 Brief facts of this case are that complainant being owner of a motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-48B-2857 (in short the vehicle) got it insured from OP insurance company for a period from 15.09.2019 to 14.09.2020. It is submitted that on 17.03.2020, complainant met with an accident in the area of village Gamdi near Govt. School when a cow came in front of Swift Car bearing regn. No.HR-03Q-5786and in order to save the cow, the car struck against the motorcycle, complainant suffered minor injuries whereas the motorcycle got badly damaged. OP company was informed. At the instance of OP insurance company, the vehicle was brought at M.R.M. Autos Pvt. Ltd. Vidhya Nagar, Bhiwani where repair estimate was made of Rs.40,730/-. As per complainant, surveyor of OP company visited the said agency. DDR No.9 dated 18.03.2020 was registered in this regard at P.S. Tosham. It is alleged that despite releasing the claim, OP insurance company sent letters dated 20.06.2020, and 07.08.2020 raising various issues viz. no opportunity was given to it to inspect the vehicle on the spot and that the damage to the vehicle were old, rusted and not related wit the cause of loss. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of Ops resulting into monetary loss to him besides mental and physical harassment. In the end, prayer has been made to direct the OP to settle the claim of the vehicle alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of accident till actual realization besides Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and also to pay Rs.21,000/-  towards litigation expenses.  Any other relief to which this Commission deems fit has also been sought.  

2.                 Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua maintainability of complaint, territorial jurisdiction, cause of action and suppression of material facts. On merits, it is submitted that complainant had given intimation with regard to the alleged damage to the motorcycle on 17.03.2020. It is alleged that complainant himself removed the vehicle from the place of accident which deprived the OP insurance company from spot survey. However, it is submitted that upon receiving claim intimation, claim of complainant was registered and immediately an independent surveyor and loss assessor was deputed to verify the genuineness of the claim and to assess the loss. It is denied that estimate of the damaged vehicle was Rs.40,370/-. Also the complainant did not clarify the queries raised by OP vide its letters and thus claim was repudiated vide letter dated 21.08.2020. In the end, denied for any deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                 Complainant in evidence, tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-6 and Mark-C/A & Mark C/B and closed the evidence on 12.07.2022.

4.                 No evidence tendered on behalf of OP despite availing sufficient opportunities, as such, the evidence of OP was closed  by Court vide order dated 07.12.2023.

5.                 We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record minutely.

6.                 From the record, it reveals that claim to complainant has been denied on the basis of letter dated 18.06.2020 (Annexure R-3), wherein mentioned that with reference to the reported claim, documents submitted by complainant and surveyor’s report, the following observations have been made:-

1.       No opportunity was given to us to inspect the vehicle on the spot of loss, to verify the admissibility of the loss. Thus you have deprived us an opportunity to ascertain the necessary facts related to the accident including without limitation, cause of loss, circumstances and quantum of loss required to decide admissibility of claim.

2.       The damages to the vehicle are old, rusted and also not correlating with cause of loss, therefore, same are not admissible in your reported claim.

7.                 Complainant in order to prove that the vehicle met with accident on the alleged date has placed on record copy of DDR (Annexure C-3) and photographs Mark C/A and Mark C/B whereby it is evident that the motorcycle in question got damaged alongwith offending car. As per copy of registration of the motorcycle (Annexure C-1), complainant is owner of the vehicle. We have seen the repair estimate of the motorcycle (Annexure C-2) which reveals that the repair cost is higher than IDV of the vehicle i.e. Rs.32,707/- as is evident from insurance policy Annexure C-4.

8.                 After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, we are of the view that on the day of alleged accident, the vehicle in question was under insurance coverage with the OP. The accident took place on 17.03.2020 and as per averments of OP, surveyor’s report was of dated 20.03.2020 meaning thereby that intimation qua accident of the vehicle was given to OP insurance company prior to the report of surveyor.  Thus the OP insurance company had sufficient time to get the vehicle surveyed, as such, the defence of OP insurance company that no opportunity to inspect the vehicle was given is not tenable. It is not proved on record that the damage to the vehicle were rustic or old. As such, it is observed that repudiation of the claim by OP insurance company was not reasonable and justified in the circumstances of the present case and such act of OP must have caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant besides monetary loss. Hence, the complainant is entitled to the IDV of the vehicle alongwith compensation for harassment. Accordingly the complaint is allowed and OP is directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of this order:-

(i)       To pay a sum of Rs.32,707/- (Rs.Thirty two thousand seven hundred seven) to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint till its realization subject to completing formalities by complainant qua transfer of ownership of the vehicle in favour of OP insurance company within 15 days from the date of receiving certified copy of this order.

(ii)      Also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rs. Five thousand) as compensation for harassment.

(iii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rs. Five thousand five hundred) on account of litigation expenses.

                    In case of default, all the aforementioned awarded amounts shall attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default.  If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced.

Dated:26.09.2024.