Delhi

North East

CC/304/2014

Jai Prakash - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

04 Sep 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 304/14

 

In the matter of:

 

	Jai Prakash S/o Shri Indraj House No. 602-D-S, Ward No.3 Mehrauli, Delhi-110030.	Complainant
	Versus
	M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd Through its Directors 6th Floor, Ashok Bhawan, 93 Nehru Place, New Delhi-110049.	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:      JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION :

12.04.2014 04.09.2019 04.09.2019

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Succinctly put, facts giving rise to the present complaint are that the complainant being owner of Tata Indigo Car bearing registration No. DL 1YC 2619 had taken Commercial Vehicle Package Policy bearing No. OG-13-1105-1803-00001133 w.e.f. 20.01.2013 to 19.01.2014 from OP on payment of premium of  Rs. 17,269/- for IDV of Rs. 3,91,000/-. During the currency of the policy, the subject vehicle met with an accident on 07.07.2013 and a total loss claim was lodged with OP. No FIR was lodged as there was no injury to any person but OP kept insisting on submission of copy of FIR despite complainant chasing it for early settlement of claim but OP totally ignored the same to wriggle out of its legal liability despite being duty bound to make payment of claim. Therefore, alleging deficiency of service on the part of OP, complainant filed the present complaint praying for issuance of directions against eh OP to release the IDV of the vehicle i.e. Rs. 3,91,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% and to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- towards damages for harassment, tension and agony and Rs. 50,000/- towards cost of litigation.

Complainant has attached copy Driving License, copy of authorization certificate issued by Transport Department GNCTD, copy of certificate cum policy schedule policy and copy of RC.

Additionally, complainant filed affidavit to the effect of insured vehicle having met with an accident on 06.07.2013 on way to Sanoli (Rajasthan) from Delhi and expenses incurred to the tune of Rs. 2,43,132/- towards repair done by Murti Motors, authorized service centre of Tata Motors of the accidental insured vehicle and vide invoice dated 25.08.2013 for the same.

2. Notice was issued to OP on 28.08.2013. OP entered appearance and filed written statement in which it took the preliminary objection that as a compliant duty bound organization, OP on receipt of OD claim by complainant, sent letters dated 23.09.2013, 30.09.2013, 08.10.2013 and 15.10.2013 to the complainant urging him to submit the requisite documents but complainant failed to do so much less respond thereto and therefore in due course, OP appointed IRDA License Surveyor to assess the loss which surveyor, assed the loss and submitted the report. OP further contended that lodging of FIR of police complaint was very vital in accident case since in absence of the same, it cannot be established whether took place or not. Therefore, OP rejected the claim of the complainant in such circumstances. Lastly, OP taking the defence of no callous or negligent attitude of deficiency of service on its part, prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
3. Rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant wherein the complainant reiterated his grievance against the OP and exhibited the documents relied upon in the complaint. Complainant submitted that the copy of DL was already submitted to the OP several times and the factum of accident can be ascertained from the appearance of the vehicle for which no FIR was compulsory and alleged collusion between OP and its surveyor.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by OP exhibiting the letters written to the complainant in which the OP asked for copy of valid and effective DL of complainant for transport class at the time of accident alongwith original, attested copy of FIR, consent letter in case of no TP loss and duly filled KYC form. All the letters were supported with accompanying with postal receipt in original for proof of dispatch and copy of surveyor report dated 12.09.2013 for Net Assessed Amount of Rs. 1,50,358/-.
5. Written arguments were filed by both parties in reassertion / reiteration of their respective grievance/defence.

OP did not appear after 19.10.2015 after completion of his part of pleadings for addressing oral arguments due to which reason court notice was issued to OP as directed vide order dated 08.03.2018 on receipt of which a proxy counsel appeared on behalf of OP on 27.04.2018 seeking adjournment for addressing oral arguments on grounds of hospitalization of OP’s counsels father but never appeared thereafter for which a cost of Rs. 1,000/- was also imposed on OP vide order dated 03.05.2019 but neither the OP appeared nor paid cost. Therefore the matter was posted for final arguments on 04.09.2019. However, as per the settled law in passed by Hon'ble National Commission in Bank of India Vs N V Deoras 1997 (3) CPR 63 (NC), even if OP is absent, commission / Forum must consider averments in version before passing orders, therefore the pleadings of OP shall be taken into consideration while passing orders.

6. We have heard the arguments forwarded by the counsel for the complainant and have perused the documentary evidence placed on record by both sides.

Undisputedly, the factum of accident of the insured vehicle on 07.07.2013 is established and confirmed by both the parties as also can be seen from the surveyor comments in its final surveyor report for survey dated 09.07.2013 wherein surveyor has submitted that ‘damages are relevant with the cause of incident’ and had also approved a claim of Rs. 1,50,358/-. The said report in the document check list acknowledges receipt of DL therefore the demand raised for the same in letters written by OP in September 2013 to October 2013 cannot be validated. No FIR in the matter does create difficulty in establishing factum of accident and genuinity of the claim though it is true that in certain accident cases, where no FIR has been lodged, claims are settled by insurance company but in such cases the repairs are undertaken by the repairer on advice of the surveyor of insurance company but in the present case no such documents has been filed which shows that there was any such agreement or communication between the parties leading to therefore a dead lock situation also contributed significantly by non cooperation of the complainant in submitting the documents and requisite information / clarification sought by OP in its several letters which the complainant failed to furnish viz consent letter and duly filled KYC form for which no cogent explanation came forth from the complainant for non furnishing the same to OP.

7. After analyzing the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that the claim was repudiated by OP due to non furnishing of relevant information by complainant. However the fact cannot be ignored that the OP wrote several letters to complainant seeking the said information on receiving his OD claim and after the surveyor report filed in September 2013 where a claim of Rs. 1,50,358/- was net assessed amount but complainant failed to furnish the same leading OP to repudiate the claim vide letter dated 15.10.2013. The Hon'ble National Commission in Vijay Harshad Dholkya Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd III (2018) CPJ 575 (NC) held in a case of delay in claim settlement and non submission of document despite several correspondence between surveyor and complainant that it was a case of contributory negligence of malafide intension of surveyor and lackadaisical approach of insurance company and complainant. The said case is squarely applicable in the present case. Therefore, we are inclined to partially consider the OD claim of the complainant on the lines of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amalendu Sahoo Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd in CA No. 2703/2010 decided on 25.03.2010 on Non Standard Basis as complainant cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own act of omission / commission and in the event of breach of condition of Motor Policy.
8. We therefore allow 75% of the IDV of Rs. 3,91,000/- i.e. Rs. 2,93,250/- payable by OP to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till realization. We further direct OP to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for damages, harassment tension and agony inclusive of litigation charges. Let the order be complied with by OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
9. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
10.  File be consigned to record room.
11.  Announced on 04.09.2019.

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member