Delhi

StateCommission

A/10/453

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GEN. INSU. CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

NARENDRA - Opp.Party(s)

18 May 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision:18.05.2015

First Appeal- 453/10

(Arising out of the order dated 26.02.2010 passed in complaint case no. 621/2007 by the District Forum, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi)

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Regional Office: C-31/32,

Ist & 2^nd Floor,

Connought Place,

New Delhi-110001

Through Its Managing Director/

Director/Authorized Signatory 

                                                                                        …..Appellant

Versus 

Shri. Narendra

S/o Shri Suraj Bhan

R/o H-5, Ahinsa Vihar Apartment

Sector-9, Rohini,

Delhi-110085

 

                                                                                    …..Respondent

 

CORAM

(Justice Veena Birbal, President)

(Salma Noor, Member)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

                                  

 (Justice Veena Birbal, President

         

1.             This is an appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (in short ‘the Act’) wherein challenge has been made to order dated 26.02.2010 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi (in short ‘the District Forum’) in complaint case no. 621/07.

2.             The respondent herein was the complainant before the District Forum. He had filed a complaint under section 12 of the Act alleging therein that he was the registered owner of Opal Corsa Car bearing registered No. DL-2CM-4291.  The said car was insured for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- with the appellant/OP for the period from 30.11.2006 to 29.11.2007. It was alleged that on 14.12.2006 at about 4.30 a.m. when the said car was on the way from Delhi to Haridwar at G.T. Road, near Mool Chand Hotel within the jurisdiction of police station Mansoorpur, Distt. Muzzafarnagar (UP) the same was hit by a tractor with trolly which was filled with sugarcane as a result of which the said car was totally damaged. It was alleged that the accident was reported to the police of P.S. Mansoorpur, Distt. Muzzafarnagar, (UP). It was alleged that at the time of accident the respondent/complainant was driving the said car and had sustained injuries for which he remained under treatment in Muzzafarnagar Medical College and Hospital. The appellant/OP was informed about the accident well in time and the respondent/complainant had brought the said car from the place of accident to the workshop at Delhi for repair wherein loss to the vehicle was assessed as total/huge. The respondent/complainant preferred the claim with the appellant/OP. The appellant/OP appointed a surveyor, namely, Sh. Avnish Kumar, who conducted the survey of the damaged car. However, the claim was not settled by the appellant/OP and thereupon the respondent/complainant filed a complaint under section 12 of the Act alleging deficiency in service on the part of appellant/OP in not settling the claim. The respondent/complainant sought directions for the appellant/OP to pay the claim amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- along with compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and also to pay for litigation expenses.

2.             The appellant/OP contested the claim by filing written statement alleging therein that there was no deficiency on the part of the appellant/OP in not settling the claim. It was alleged that on the receipt of the claim papers from the respondent/complainant, an investigator/surveyor was appointed who had submitted the report. After pursuing the documents and relevant terms and conditions of the policy the respondent/complainant was requested by the appellant/OP to submit his reply to their letter dated 26.03.2007 but the respondent/complainant did not reply to the said letter and had rather sent a legal notice. The same was replied by the appellant/OP on 20.04.2007. It was alleged that as per the surveyor report the damage to the insured vehicle were found badly rusted which clearly meant that the same were old and did not match with the cause of loss as was mentioned by the respondent/complainant in the claim form. It was further alleged that vehicle was removed from the spot of accident without the consent and knowledge of the appellant/OP due to which it could not ascertain the necessary facts for the admissibility of the claim. It was alleged that as per the respondent/complainant, the accident took place on 14.12.2006 and there was also delay in informing the accident. It was further alleged fictious/fake GR was filed by the respondent/complainant for bringing the said car from place of accident to Delhi. It was alleged that as per the verification carried out by the appellant/OP the alleged GR was issued for ferrying vegetables from Muzaffarnagar to Delhi. It was alleged that the claim was lacking bonafidies on the part of respondent/complainant and prayer was made for rejecting the same.

3.             Both the parties had led evidence before the Ld. District Forum. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the Ld. District Forum rejected the surveyor report filed by the appellant by observing that  the surveyor had inspected the car after a period of 6 months as such the notings therein that the damages were rusted and old and were not corresponding with the date of accident were not believable. The Ld. District Forum further observed that if the car remains in open in unattended for such a long period, the car would be naturally rusted. It was held that for delay on the part of the appellant/OP, the respondent/complainant could not be blamed and accordingly the District Forum had awarded entire IDV to the respondent/complainant along with compensation and litigation expenses. The relief given is reproduced as under:

i.      OP will pay Rs. 1,50,000/- to the complainant which is the insurance amount subject to the condition that complainant will give indemnity bond to the OP and fill all the necessary forms and will get the vehicle transfer in the name of OP with the transport department and will have no claim on this vehicle if the same is traced out later on.

ii.      On account of mental agony and harassment, OP will pay Rs. 100000/- to the complainant as compensation.

iii.     OP will pay Rs. 10000/- to the complainant towards the cost of litigation.

        This order be complied with within 30 days”.

5.             Aggrieved with the aforesaid order the present appeal is filed.

6.             Ld. counsel for the appellant has contended that the finding of the District Forum that the surveyor had inspected the car after a period of 6 months is contrary to material on record. It is contended that the alleged accident is dated 14.12.2006. The surveyor had inspected car on 19.12.2006      and the report was given on 31.03.2007. In these circumstances, the finding of the Ld. District Forum that surveyor had inspected car after 6 months is erroneous. It is further contended that the fictitious/fake Goods Receipt No. 191 issued by Delhi Agra Road Lines, Muzaffarnagar was produced before the appellant/OP by the respondent/complainant to show that vide aforesaid receipt the car in question was brought to Delhi. It is contended that the verification report was submitted by the investigator of appellant/OP i.e. Exhibit R-1 which shows that the alleged 191 GR was issued by Delhi Agra Road Lines for ferrying vegetables from Mazaffarnagar to Delhi. It is contended that the said evidence provided by respondent is not considered by the District Forum. It is submitted that the respondent/complainant has played a fraud before the District Forum and is not entitled for any relief.

7.             On the other hand Ld. counsel for the respondent/complainant has contended that no illegality or perversity is in the impugned order  which calls for interference by this Commission.

8.             We have heard the submissions made and perused the material on record including the record of the District Forum concerning the present case.

9.             It is admitted position that the respondent/complainant was the registered owner of Opal Corsa Car bearing registered No. DL-2CM-4291 and the said car was insured with the appellant/OP at the relevant time. As per the respondent/complainant the accident of aforesaid car had taken place on 14.12.2006  at G.T. Road, Near Mool Chand Hotel within the jurisdiction of police station Mansoorpur, Distt. Muzaffarnagar (UP) on being hit by a tractor with trolly which was filled with sugarcane and as per which there was a total damage to the car. No date is mentioned in the complainant as to when the alleging accidnet was reported to the Insurance Company. According to the appellant/OP the information of alleged accident was received on 18.12.2006 and the surveyor was inspected that insured car inspected that insured car on 19.12.2006 and gave the following report on 31.03.2007 i.e. Ex-R-II:

        “Comments/observations on conditions/warranties

●      The damages to the insured vehicle were checked at repairers M/s Perfect Automobiles, New Delhi on dt. 19.12.2006.

●      While it was observed that 1, the damages are too rusted and don’t correspond to the date of the accident 2, the cause of the accident doesn’t seem to be attributing to the damages as whole.

●      The matter was brought to the knowledge of the insurers and enquired whether the spot survey was ever been conducted in the said claim, but as their reply negated this, they were requested to verify the matter with respect to all the relevant documents provided by the insured.

●      Meanwhile the insured was requested to affirm that the documents submitted by him are true and genuine and his statement authenticate the genuiness of these, should be record on legal papers.

●      Through the claim requires verification, to limit the liability the assessment of the loss is drawn by the undersigned is on independent basis, where it ascertains that the subject vehicles is damaged beyond economical repairs and the net liability  may be ascertained at the deposal of the salvage, if the claim stands admissible.

●      Also please note that the subject vehicle was fitted with the CNG kit, without being endorsed on RC, but it was removed prior to the survey”.

10.            The aforesaid report Ex. R-II was filed along with evidence of the appellant/respondent and also with the written statement. The Ld. District Forum has wrongly noted in the impugned order that the surveyor had conducted the survey after 6 months whereas it has been conducted after 4 days of the alleged accident and the damages to the insured car were rusted and were not corresponding with the date of accident. The above report Ex-II is not challenged by respondent/complainant. No evidence is also placed on record by respondent/complainant to substantiate that the accident had taken place on 14.12.2006. Further, as per claim lodged with the appellant/OP the respondent/complainant had alleged that the vehicle was brought from place of accident i.e. Muzaffarnagar to Delhi vide GR No. 191 alleged to have issued by Delhi Agra Road Lines, Muzzaffarnagar. The aforesaid GR 191 was sent for verification by the appellant/OP and as per the report verification dated 20.03.2007 i.e. Exhibit R-1, the alleged GR has been found fictitious. The relevant portion verification report Ex R-I is under:

“i.     The Registration Number of the Truck mentioned in the copy of GR, as per the office records of M/s Delhi Agra Roadlines is UP 171352 where as per the photo copy of GR produced to us by the insured, it is DL1M 1789.

ii.      GR No. 191, has been issued on 15.12.2006 as per the office records of M/s Delhi-Agra Roadlines where as per the photo copy of GR produced to us by the insured  it is 14.12.2006.

iii.     The place of inception of journey as per the office record of Delhi-Agra Roadlines is Mujaffar Nagar and the journey was completed at Meerut. Where as per the documents given to us by the insured though the place of inception of journey is Mujaffar Nagar but it ended at Sector-9, Delhi.

iv.     As per the office record of the above transporter, the above GR has been issued on 15.12.2006 for ferrying vegetables from Mujaffar Nagar to Meerut, where as per the document supplied by the insured the above GR has been issued on 14.12.2006  for ferrying the car from Mujaffar Nagar to Delhi”.

11.            The District Forum has also ignored the aforesaid material piece of evidence i.e. verification report produced by the appellant/OP in the evidence as EX R-1. Reading the aforesaid report it can’t be said that vide GR- 191 the damaged insured car was brought to Delhi.

12.            In view of the above evidence on record produced by appellant/OP it can’t be said that the vehicle had met with an accident on 14.12.2006 as is alleged by the complainant/. The claim lacks bonafides on the part of the respondent/complainant. The Ld. District Forum has commit illegality in granting relief to the respondent/complainant as material evidence produced by the appellant/OP which totally demolishes the complaint case of respondent/complaint is ignored. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/OP in not settling the claim of the respondent/complainant.

 In view of the above discussion, appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

                It is stated that the amount awarded is already realized in execution proceedings by the respondent/complainant. We may observe that a haste is shown by the District Forum in realising the amount in execution proceeding.

                The respondent/complainant shall return the amount received by him along with 6% interest from the date of receipt till payment within 6 weeks of receipt of this order.

                A copy of this order as per statutory requirements be sent to the parties. A copy of the same be also sent to concerned District Forum.

                FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released in his favour as per rules.

                File be consigned to record room.

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member