Haryana

Panchkula

CC/223/2014

SANDEEP SINGH. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S BAJAJ ALLIANZ INSURANCE. - Opp.Party(s)

SUNIL GUPTA.

15 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                                    

Consumer Complaint No	:	223 of 2014
Date of Institution	:	13.11.2014
Date of Decision	:	15.04.2015

                                                                                          

Sandeep Singh S/o Sh.Gurnam Singh, R/o H.No.485, Sector-6, Panchkula.

 

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

 

M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO 14, 4^th Floor, Urban Estate, Sector-5, Panchkula (Hr.).

                                                                         ….Opposite Party

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Coram:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

              Mr.Anil Sharma, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Sunil Gupta, Advocate, for the complainant. 

Mr.Rajesh Verma, Advocate, for the Op.

 

ORDER

 

(Anita Kapoor, Member)

 

1. The complainant-Sandeep Singh has filed this complaint against the opposite party (hereinafter referred as OP) with the averments that he insured his vehicle No.HR-03-N-4334 make SKODA Model 2011, Engine No.CLC012962, Chassis No.TMBCEG1Z6BA154357 vide policy No.OG-14-9906-1801-00051918 valid from 08.01.2014 to 07.01.2015 from the Op for a sum of Rs.10,84,000/-. Unfortunately, on 24.03.2014, vehicle met with an accident and intimation of accident was given to the OP. The complainant submitted the requisite documents and completed all the formalities with it. The Op appointed a surveyor for investigation of the occurrence and estimation of the loss but in due course, no intimation was sent to the complainant. The complainant moved an application under RTI to the Op and sought the information about the settlement & surveyor report. The Op replied vide reply dated 11.09.2014 (Annexure C-2) by denying the information that the provisions of RTI were not applicable to them and it took almost one month to reach to the conclusion and for intimating the same to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant received a letter dated 12.08.2014 issued by the Op directing the complainant to provide the copy of registration certificate alongwith original verification & consent letter and sent the same to the Op within 7 days which was replied by the complainant vide his letter dated 10.09.2014 alongwith the documents i.e. driving license, registration certificate, insurance policy and copy of FIR. After that, the Op repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 10.10.2014 on the grounds that the documents so demanded vide letter dated 12.08.2014 have not been furnished by the complainant. The act and conduct of the Op amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Hence, the complaint.
2. The Op appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the claim of the complainant has rightly repudiated vide letter dated 10.10.2014, after due application of mind and appreciation of facts of letter. It is submitted that the vehicle No.HR03N-4334 make Skoda was insured vide policy No.0G-14-9906-1801-00051918 valid from 08.01.2014 to 07.01.2015 in the name of the complainant as a private car package policy. It is submitted that issuance of policy and payment of claim was always subject to fulfillment of the terms of the policy. It is submitted that on the claim intimation, the Op deputed M/s PEE Kay & Co. Surveyors and Loss Assessors who submitted motor preliminary survey report in predismental condition. It is submitted that after receipt of Survey report, OP has processed the claim as suggested by IRDA licensed surveyor and addressed to complainant for providing the necessary documents to process the claim. It is submitted that neither the complainant provided necessary documents nor replied to letters. It is submitted that letter dated 12.08.2014 was issued to the complainant by hand, when no response was received, another letter was issued to the complainant through registered post and requested him again to respond and fulfill the requirements to process the claim but the complainant did not provide the documents and the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 10.10.2014. It is submitted that letter dated 11.09.2014 was sent in reply to the application to the complainant under Right to Information Act. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Op and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Replication to the written statement has been filed by the counsel for the complainant.
4. The counsel for the complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-11 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the Op has tendered the evidence by way of affidavits Annexure R-A & R-B alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to R-7 and closed the evidence.
5. On 27.03.2015, the matter was fixed for final arguments. It was on that date that the Ld. Counsel for OPs filed an application for amendment of the written statement. The matter was adjourned to enable the complainant to file a reply thereto which was filed on 30.03.2015. On 27^th itself, while adjourning the case to 30.03.2015, we had made it clear that (on the filing of the reply) arguments on the application as also merits shall be heard. Even otherwise, we heard arguments on the application and also on the merits of the complaint (in that order) on 30^th March 2015. We have given our due consideration to the arguments addressed on the application and also on the merits of the complaint.
6. Insofaras the application is concerned, it merits outright dismissal on merits as also on point of it being belated. The purposed amendment wants to bring in a plea that the OPs are exonerated from liability as the driver of the insured vehicle had been found by the police to be under the influence of liquor. The plea raised is that the fact aforementioned came to the notice of the OPs on the filing of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against the driver of the vehicle at the time of impugned accident.
7. The application for amendment, as also the affidavit filed in support thereof, are conspicuous by the absence therefrom of an averment about when exactly had the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. been filed by the police. It was incumbent upon the OPs to make that averment in order to be able to escape the charge of the application having been filed after delay. The endorsement made by the Ld. Trial Magistrate on the challan otherwise says it all. The endorsement records that the challan had been filed on 24.07.2014. That being so, there is no escape from the conclusion that the amendment application filed on 27.03.2015 is highly belated and cannot be accepted on that plea itself. The application shall stand rejected accordingly.
8. On merits of the complaint, we find ourselves in agreement with the plea raised by the complainant. The following observations shall support the view we have obtained on the basis of the presentation made by the parties during the course of hearing.
9. A perusal of the pleadings would indicate that the factum of the relevant vehicle being under insurance cover for the period 08.01.2014 to 07.01.2015 is beyond the pale of controversy. It is further the own plea of the OPs that on receipt of intimation from the complainant, a Surveyor and loss Assessor (Pee Kay & Co., Surveyors and loss Assessors) were assigned the job of the extant of loss/damage to the insured vehicle. Concededly, the report submitted by the surveyor firm is Annexure R-5.
10. The OPs have made an averment that they repudiated the claim as the complainant did not furnish the following documentation sought by the former vide letters Annexure C-9 (dated 12.08.2014) and Annexure C-10 (dated 10.10.2014).

• Original Vehicle Registration Book For Verification.
• Consent letter

11.     It is interesting to note that the averment made by the OPs in the course of the written statement (that the complainant did not provide the relevant documentation) was controverted by the latter by filing a rejoinder. The OPs did not join issue with the complainant, and in the matter of that denial, in the form of any further pleadings.

12.     For want of any documentation produced to prove the factual averments qua the plea recorded in the course of the preceding para, we would rely upon the age-old adage that ‘Men may lie but the circumstances do not’ to record a finding in favour of the complainant. Here was an individual (complainant in this case) who had applied to get monetary claim in respect of a vehicle which was under insurance cover. There is no earthly reason why he would not have provided the indicated documentation in order to be able to get the claim therefor. Even otherwise, it was not appropriate on the part of the OPs to ask for the original registration certification. They must have satisfied themselves about the title of the vehicle before insuring it in the first instance. In that view of things, it is apparent that the repudiation of the claim by OPs was on grounds which have been found to be un-sustainable at law.

13.     We at the forum, as a limb of extended Justice Delivery System, are appalled at the manner in which the OPs conducted themselves in the matter of repudiation of the claim. An attitude of that type does not show the OPs in good light. That type of attitude will not go down well with the insured population who will not find the attitude of impediment of this type to be acceptable.

14.     In the light of forgoing discussion, we would allow this complaint and direct that: -

(a)   The OPs shall pay to the complainant the amount mentioned in the consent letter Annexure C-8.

(b)   The OPs shall pay interest @ 6% on the due amount from the date of repudiation till the payment thereof comes about.

(c)   The OPs shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as the compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.

(d)   The OPs shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as the cost of litigation. 

15.     The OPs shall comply with this order within a period of one month from the date its communication to it comes about. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

15.04.2015     ANIL SHARMA      ANITA KAPOOR        DHARAM PAL

                       MEMBER                        MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

 

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

    

                                 

                                                         ANITA KAPOOR

                                                           MEMBER