Haryana

StateCommission

A/97/2019

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAKESH KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

GEETA GULATI

25 Mar 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA   

 

                                                 

                                                First Appeal No.97 of 2019

                                                Date of the Institution: 23.01.2019

                                                Date of Decision: 25.03.2019

 

 

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Block No.04, 07^th Floor, DLF Tower 15, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi, through its Authorized Signatory Mr. Jai Singh.

 

 

…..Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

 

VERSUS

 

Rakesh Kumar son of Bhim Singh, resident of Village Ajaib, Tehsil Meham, District Rohtak.

 

…Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                   Ms. Manjula, Member.

 

 

               

                                     

Present:-    Ms. Geeta Gulati, counsel for the appellant.

                  

 

                                                O R D E R

 

 

T.P.S. MANN, J.  

 

          Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited-opposite party No.1 has filed the instant appeal against the order dated 30.10.2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak, whereby complaint filed by Rakesh Kumar-complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was allowed and the opposite parties directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,50,907/- to him towards repair bill along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization and also a sum of Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses  besides Rs.2,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service.

2.      According to the complainant, he was registered owner of Chevrolet Beat car bearing temporary registration No.HR-99-7375, which was insured with the opposite parties vide policy dated 28.10.2016 valid upto 27.10.2017. The temporary registration was valid upto 27.11.2016. On 14.11.2016, the vehicle met with an accident and completely damaged. The complainant informed the opposite parties, who appointed the Surveyor to assess the loss. The complainant got the vehicle repaired and spent Rs.2,50,907/- for the same. He submitted all the documents to the opposite parties for releasing the claim. It was a cashless insurance and the opposite parties were liable to make the entire payment of repair to the workshop but they did not do so and accordingly the complainant had to pay the repair charges. Despite repeated requests made by the complainant, his claim was not released by the opposite parties, which act amounted to deficiency in service. Hence, the complaint with prayer to direct the opposite parties to disburse the insured amount of Rs.3,95,000/- including repair charges, litigation expenses and compensation for harassment.

3.      Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their written version stating therein that vehicle of the complainant was insured with the opposite party. The complainant had intimated a claim with the opposite parties on account of damage of the vehicle. The claim was duly processed and it was observed that the vehicle was being driven without registration at the time of accident. The same was breach of terms of the policy and Motor Vehicle Act. Accordingly, the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 18.01.2017. Resultantly, the insurance company was not liable to pay any amount to the complainant.

4.      After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence, learned District Forum allowed the complaint and passed the impugned order.

5.      Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and on going through the impugned order, the State Commission finds that the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant on 28.10.2016 and the policy was issued for the period of one year i.e. from 28.10.2016 to 27.10.2017. The accident took place on 14.11.2016. The insurance policy (Exhibit C6) was issued as Zero Depreciation policy and an extra amount of Rs.3,706/- was received by the insurance company for the said purpose. The original bills produced by the complainant showed that he had spent an amount of Rs.2,50,907/- for getting his vehicle repaired.   As such, the complainant is entitled to recover the said amount.

6.      In view of the above, no case is made for any interference in the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of the appeal be disbursed in favour of the respondent-complainant against proper receipt and identification subject to filing of appeal/revision, if any.

 

       

Announced 25.03.2019

(Manjula) Member

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

D.R.