Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/272/2023

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - Complainant(s)

Versus

SATBIR SON OF SHRI TARA CHAND - Opp.Party(s)

RAJESH VERMA ADV.

23 Oct 2024

ORDER

            STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                       U.T., CHANDIGARH (Additional Bench)

 

Appeal No.	:	272 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	10.10.2023
Date of Decision	:	23.10.2024

 

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 156-159, Second Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, through its authorized signatory.

through its Authorized and duly constituted person/attorney Sh. Saurav Khullar, Deputy Manager (Legal), Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 157-158-159, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.

                                                                                         ... Appellant/OP

                                                       Versus

Satbir son of Shri Tara Chand, resident of H.No.1516, Sector 52,      Chandigarh.

 2^nd address:-

Satbir son of Shri Tara Chand, resident of H.No.1516, Village Daun, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.

                                                                                              .... Respondent/Complainant

BEFORE:        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                        MR.PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by:     Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for the appellant.

                         Sh. Bhupinder Singh, Advocate for the respondent.

 PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

This appeal is directed against the order dated 04.09.2023, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. District Commission”), vide which, it partly allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing No.574 of 2021 in the following terms;

“4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP is directed as under:-

1. to pay Rs. 1,38,000/-  to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 02.04.2021, till realization of the same.
2. to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as  compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him.
3. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

 5.      This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the  date of receipt at its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr. No, (i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr. No. (iii) above”.

2.              For the convenience, the parties are being referred to, in the instant Appeal, as position held in Consumer Complaint before the Ld. District Commission.
3.              Before the Ld. District Commission, it was the case of the Complaint   that he is the registered owner of Bajaj Maxima CNG Three Wheeler, bearing registration No. PB 65 AX 3280 which was insured with the OP vide policy at Annexure C-2 w.e.f. 12.12.2020 to 11.12.2021. On 04.02.2021, Vikram, relative of the complainant had taken the above said auto from the complainant for some personal work and had gone for darshan at Kali Mata Mandir, Dhanas and after having darshan in the said temple when he came back, he found the subject auto stolen from the spot by some unknown persons. Immediately, after the said incident, Vikram had reported the matter to the police, which resulted in registration of FIR No.0014 dated 04.02.2021 under Section 379 IPC. Immediately after that, intimation was also given to the OPs about the theft of the subject auto. Thereafter, the OP had appointed approved investigator to investigate the matter. However vide letter dated 02.04.2021 the OP repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that FIR was got registered after 11 days of the occurrence and the OP was informed about the said theft after 13 days of the occurrence and there was violation of the terms & conditions of the policy and also that he had not having valid route permit at the time of alleged theft. Hence the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. District Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
4.              In the reply filed before the Ld. District Commission, the OP  pleaded that the complainant has violated the terms & conditions of the policy by firstly not reporting the matter to the police immediately and intimating the OP about the alleged theft and also that the complainant was not possessing valid route permit at the time of alleged occurrence. It was further pleaded that the complainant has not approached the Commission with clean hands and was estopped from filing the present consumer complaint. Denying all other allegation and pleading no deficiency in service, the OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.              On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, Ld. District Commission allowed the Consumer Complaint of the complainant as noticed in the opening para of this order.
6.               Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. District Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the appellant/ Opposite Party.
7.              We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care.
8.             The core question that fall for consideration before us is as to    whether the Ld. District Commission has rightly passed the impugned order by appreciating the entire material placed before it.
9.           After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed  for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
10.           The Learned District Commission has partly allowed the complaint and had ordered           and a direction that the Opposite Party i.e. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited to pay Rs.1,38,000/- alongwtih interest
    @ 9% p.a. from the date of the repudiation of  the claim till realization. Alongwith Rs.10,000/- for compensation and Rs.10,000/- for litigation. The Learned District Commission has further observed that OP has not come to specific defence that the complainant/respondent would have gained by not having effective permit or that there was malafide on the part of the respondent with a view to gain pecuniary advantage from the Insurance Company. It was further observed that the Opposite Party/ appellant could not have repudiated the Insurance claim on the hyper technical ground that the complainant was not possessing effective permit to ply the subject in Chandigarh. The OP is bound to provide insurance cover in the case involving what can at best be called a technical irregularity and not a fundamental breach and therefore, the conduct of the OP/appellant in repudiating the claim amounts to deficiency in service. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed and the order of the Learned District Commission is upheld.
11.               Keeping in view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Commission, partly allowing the consumer Complaint ordering refund of the amount along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses, is based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law on the point, does not suffer from any illegality and does not need interference of this Commission.  Resultantly, the appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed and the order of the Ld. District Commission is upheld.
12.              All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of, accordingly.
13.             Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, forthwith.
14.            The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion and the District Commission be sent back immediately.

 

Pronounced

23^th Oct. 2024                                                                                                      

                                                                                                                                        Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/- [PREETINDER SINGH]

MEMBER

‘Tanvi’