Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1062/2009

R.N. SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Bajaj Allanz General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

01 Jun 2016

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI),

 ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

 NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.C.C./1062/2009                                       Dated:

In the matter of:

R.N. SHARMA,

303, Shikha Apartment,

Plot No. 48, I.P. Extn.,

Delhi-92.

        ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

BAJAJ ALIANZ GNEERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.

C-31/32, Ist Floor,

Connaught Place,

New Delhi-110001

 

 

               .... OPPOSITE PARTY

 

PRESIDENT: S.K. SARVARIA

ORDER

 

The case of the complainant in this complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is that the complainant being a registered owner of Maruti Wagon R vehicle bearing Registration No. DL-9 CM-4377 has taken the comprehensive insurance in respect of the said car from OP insurance company with their cover note/policy No. OG-909-1003-1801-00018361 for the period of one year from 5/10/2007 to 4/10/2009. On 24/4/09 the insured vehicle met with an accident at Sahibabad Delhi Road and was badly damaged from the front and its wind shield, side doors and bumper was badly broken. The intimation about the loss of the vehicle alongwith estimates of repairs was also lodged by the complainant with the OP insurance company in writing when they refused to accept the same from bearer who asked complainant to send it by Registered Post.  The complainant sent intimation letter dated 24/4/09 by Registered Post. Despite intimation OP failed to depute any surveyor for investigation and assessment of the loss. Finding an alternative complainant got the car repaired at his own cost and expenses in the sum of Rs. 20,554/- paid in cash to M/s Motorcraft Sales Pvt. Ltd. vide Cash Memo No. BC09000640.  According to the complainant the OP is liable to pay the complainant in settlement of its claim a sum of Rs. 20,554/- on account of cost to repair charges of aforesaid vehicle along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum due to deficiency in service and also a sum of Rs. 25,000/- due to mental agony, pain, suffering and loss of business by the complainant.. Besides, the complainant has claimed the amount of Rs. 11,000/- towards cost of litigation and other miscellaneous expenses.

The notice of the complaint was issued to the OP, who contested the complaint and filed written statement disputing the facts mentioned in the complaint. Although OP insurance company admitted that the insurance cover vide Policy No. OG-909-1003-1801-00018361 for the period 5/10/2008 to 4/10/2009 was done by the OP insurance company for the said insured vehicle of the complainant, but alleged that it was not for the period 5/10/2007 to 4/10/2009 as stated by the complainant. The act of complainant is not approaching insurance company at any point of time. No such communication is recorded with the OP. The alleged letter has not been delivered to the OP. The OP has denied other facts stated in the complaint and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs,  in favour of OP and against the complainant.

In the rejoinder the complainant has denied the averments made in the written statement of the OP and has reaffirmed the facts stated in the complaint. In support of his case the complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence. On behalf of OP insurance company, the affidavit in evidence of Ms. Sunanda Nimisha, Senior Executive (Legal) of the OP insurance company is filed. Both parties have filed written arguments.

 

We have heard the learned authorised representative for the complainant and have gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of both the parties, record of the case and relevant provisions of law.

Admittedly, the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the OP insurance company, though the duration of the policy is in dispute. It is not disputed that alleged accident of the insured vehicle in question is claimed during currency of the insurance policy. The main dispute is, according to the complainant he has lodged the claim with the OP insurance company. While according to the OP insurance company no such thing has happened and OP was never intimated nor complainant lodged a claim about the accident in question. It is difficult to give a firm finding on account of these contradictory stands taken by complainant in his pleadings and affidavit on the one hand and the affidavit in evidence of Ms. Sunanda Nimisha, Sr. Executive (Legal) of the OP insurance company. When two equally possible views emerge, one in favour of the consumer and other in favour of the opposite party the consumer fora should lean in favour of the consumer for whose benefit The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is enacted. However, in the given facts and circumstances of the case instead of deciding the question of entitlement of the complainant to any amounts under policy in question, we would prefer to ask the OP insurance company to decide the claim of the complainant on its own merits.

In view of the above, we direct the OP insurance company to take cognizance of the insurance claim of the complainant against the said policy and decide it preferably within three months of receipt of copy of this final order. The complainant shall co-operate with OP Insurance Company by providing documents etc., if demanded. The complaint is disposed of accordingly. A copy of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post. This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in)  The file be consigned to the record room.

 

Pronounced in open Forum on 01/06/2016.

 

 

 

(S K SARVARIA)

PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                      (NIPUR CHANDNA)

      MEMBER