Delhi

StateCommission

A/08/555

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

Versus

SHRI V.K. JAIN - Opp.Party(s)

21 Apr 2015

ORDER

 

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Decision :  21.04.2015

First Appeal No.555/2008

(Arising out of the order dated 13.03.2008 in Complaint Case No. 1087/2003 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barracks Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001)

       

 

The General Manager

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

C-31, Ist Floor

Connaught Place

New Delhi

 

Also at:

G E Plaza, Airport Road

Yerwada,Pune

 

Also at:

DLF Building, Second Floor

Moti Nagar

New Delhi                          ……Appellant      

                                                      

VERSUS

Sh. V.K.Jain

S/o Late Sh. Subhash Jain

R/o P.136/3FF, Shankar Nagar Extension

Gali No. 9, Krishna Nagar

Delhi-32

 

Also at:

D-48, Lane No. 6

West Azad Nagar

Delhi-51                            …..Respondent

 

CORAM

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

S C Jain, Member

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

2.     To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

Judgment

1.      The appellant Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. has impugned the order dt. 13.03.2008 passed by the District Forum VI, New Delhi. Vide impugned orders the Ld. District Forum has passed the following directions:

1. OP will pay Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant on depositing of salvage.
2. On account of deficiency in service, metal agony and harassment, OP will pay Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant as compensation.
3. OP will pay Rs. 10,000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant.

2.      In brief, the claim of the complainant Sh. V.K.Jain was that he used to visit Pathri Mela in Haryana every year. The vehicle No. DL6CH8297 stood insured for the period from 29.01.2003 to 28.01.2003. Unfortunately, an accident took place on 26.03.2003 when the complainant accompanied by his family was on his way to the said ‘mela’. The vehicle collided with stray cattle popularly called ‘neel gaay’. OP Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. repudiated the claim on the grounds that the vehicle was being used for ferrying passengers to the ‘mela’ after collecting fare from them. Short controversy in the matter is that as to whether the vehicle in question was being used for private use or for taking passengers after accepting fare. Ld. trial Forum placed reliance upon the copy of the Rojnamcha which is exhibit CW1/G. Reliance was also placed on  the statement given by one Sh. Rajiv Mittal. The said statement read that the vehicle was not hired but it was being used by the complainant to visit mela. On the contrary, OP placed reliance upon another statement made by Sh. Rajiv Mittal before the alleged investigator appointed by the OP. Ld. trial Forum observed that  different statements are made in different proceedings. Ld. trial Forum found the statement made by Sh. Rajiv Mittal before the police immediately after the incident worthy of credit. Ld. Trial Forum observed that there was no time for concoction of any story by Sh. Rajiv Mittal when he made a statement to the police. We, therefore, find it difficult to agree with the appellant that on the relevant day, the vehicle was being used for ferrying passengers. We, therefore, do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order dt. 13.03.2008 passed by the District Forum. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the surveyor’s report. Surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 01,01,820/-. Nothing has been placed on record by the complainant to dismiss the report of the surveyor. In the circumstances, we are, of the considered opinion that the OP is liable to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 01,01,820/- instead of the amount of Rs. 2 Lacs as directed by the Ld. Trial Forum. Trial Forum orders are accordingly modified and the OP will pay to the complainant as under:-

1. OP shall pay an amount of Rs. 01,01,820/- to the complainant after deducting salvage on account of deficiency.
2. The OP shall pay an amount of Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.
3. OP shall pay Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation charges.

3.      Appeal is accordingly partly allowed. No order as to costs.
4.      Copy of the order be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.
5.      FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.

 

(N P Kaushik)

Member (Judicial)

 

 

(S C Jain)

•  
•