Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1028/2009

R.N. Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

28 May 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./1028/2009                                                                                                                    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 the night of 14/12/2008 the insured vehicle met with an accident and was badly damaged from the front-end driver side. The intimation about the loss of the vehicle was also lodged by the complainant with the OP insurance company over telephone number 1800-102-5858 when someone named Ms. Preety spoke to the complainant and took some details, but after taking the same. She refused to entertain the intimation saying until and unless engine/chases number of the vehicle is provided, she will not register the claim. The complainant later on, spoke to Mr. Mahinder, who also did the same thing. The complainant finding no response sent letter by hand on 15/12/2008 along with other papers which was duly received by the OP office. The OP was requested to register the claim and issue necessary form for completion, to pay the claim of the complainant. 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. According to the complainant the OP is liable to pay the complainant in settlement of its claim a sum of Rs. 25,000/- 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. According to OP insurance company the complainant did not approach the OP insurance company for any insurance claim. According to OP insurance company had any accident, as alleged been really taken place, no prudent man would keep quiet and avoid approaching insurance company for reimbursement of damages. The act of complainant in not approaching insurance company at any point of time reveals that vehicle had never been involved in any accident, as alleged and complaint seems to have been filed only with an intention to gain wrongfully and cause wrongful loss to the opposite party. The OP has also alleged that the complainant has failed to state as to where and when he spoke to the alleged Mr Mahinder. No such communication is recorded with the OP. The alleged letter has not been delivered to the OP and the alleged rubber stamp on the alleged letter dated 15/12/2008 is a forgery. 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 Mr Ashutosh Singh, Assistant Manager (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 spoken to one Mahinder and one MS Preeti from the OP insurance company and 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, nor any such accident has taken place. It is difficult to give a firm finding on account of these contradictory stands taken by complainant in his pleadings and affidavit supported by affidavit of his clerk, Mr Raju on the one hand and the affidavit in evidence of Mr Ashutosh Sigh, Assistant Manager (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 receiept of copy of this final order. 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 28/5/2016.

 

 

(S K SARVARIA)

PRESIDENT

 

                                             (H M VYAS)

MEMBER