Delhi

StateCommission

FA/80/2014

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

Versus

RAKESH PRESS (P). LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

29 Jul 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

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

 

Date of Decision: 29.07.2016

 

First Appeal – 80/2014

(Arising out of the order dated 19.11.2013 passed by the District Forum-VI, M-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi in complaint case No. 885/2009)

 

        In the Matter of:

 

                Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

          7^th Floor, Block No. 4, DLF Tower, 15,

          Shivaji, Marg, New Delhi-110015

……Appellant     Versus   1. M/s Rakesh Press Pvt. Ltd. A-7, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110028   2. TATA Capital Ltd. Delhi Branch, 49, Lower Ground, Furniture Market, Rani Jhansi Road, Opp. MMTC Office, Below Delhi Chamber, New Delhi                                                               …….Respondents

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

 

By this appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (in short ‘the Act’) challenge is made to ex-parte judgment dated 19.11.2013 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, M-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi (in short ‘the District Forum’) in complaint case No. 885/2009 whereby the aforesaid complaint has been allowed and appellant/OP has been directed to pay IDV value of the vehicle  and pay compensation of Rs. 75,000/- to the respondent/complainant.

        The respondent herein i.e. complainant before the Ld. District Forum had filed a complaint u/s 12 of the Act alleging therein that he had taken insurance policy bearing No. OG-09-1101-1801-00006713 from appellant/OP having validity from 04.06.2008 to 03.06.2009 covering vehicle TOYOTA INNOVA bearing No. DL-4CNE-0522. It was alleged that the aforesaid vehicle was stolen on 02.03.2009 at about 3:00 p.m. by some unknown person from outside the office of respondent/complainant at Naraina, New Delhi. The respondent/complainant lodged FIR No. 41 dated 03.03.2009 under section 379 IPC  and thereafter had lodged a complaint with appellant/OP. The claim was repudiated by appellant/OP on the ground that the respondent/complainant had left the ignition key inside the ignition switch and thus left the vehicle in the drivable condition and as such contributed to the theft of vehicle. It was alleged that the respondent/complainant had not taken reasonable steps to safeguard  the vehicle and as such was not entitled for the claim. Aggrieved by the repudiation, the aforesaid complaint was filed before the Ld. District Forum.

The complaint was opposed by appellant/OP by filing written statement wherein the claim was opposed by the appellant/OP on the ground that there was gross negligence on the part of respondent/complainant. It was alleged that the respondent/complainant had violated the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance. It was alleged that vehicle was left unattended and in a drivable condition which has directly contributed to the theft/loss of the vehicle. It was alleged that the insured vehicle had an “in built immobilizer system” which did not start without the original.

        At the evidence stage, appellant/OP did not appear and was proceeded ex-parte before the Ld. District Forum on 08.08.2011. The Ld. District Forum after considering the evidence of the respondent/complainant and that of the financer i.e. OP-3 decided the complaint and directed the appellant/OP for making payment as has been stated above.

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

        Ld. counsel for the appellant submits that there is an ample evidence with the appellant/OP to show that the respondent/complainant did not take steps to safeguard the vehicle as key was left inside the ignition switch. It is submitted that the appellant be given chance to substantiate its claim otherwise great prejudice shall be caused to the appellant/OP.

        After some arguments, Ld. counsel for the respondent/complainant states that he has no objection if subject to costs one opportunity be given to the appellant/OP to substantiate its case on merits.

        Considering the stand of the appellant/OP on merits, material on record and for effective disposal of the case on merits, we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order and give one opportunity to the appellant/OP to file its evidence by way of affidavit before the Ld. District Forum, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent/complainant.

        Let the parties appear before the Ld. District Forum on 19.09.2016. On the said date appellant/OP shall pay costs to the respondent/complainant and shall also file its evidence by way of affidavit before the Ld. District Forum. Thereafter the Ld. District Forum shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.

        Since the present is an old matter, the District Forum shall make all endeavour to dispose it of within 6 months from the date of receipt of the order.

        A copy of this order be sent to the parties as well as to District Forum as per rules.

        File be consigned to record room. 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

       

 

(Salma Noor)

Member