Haryana

Kaithal

CC/250/2022

Manoj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Bajaj Alliianz GIC Ltd. etc. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Vinod Jangra

18 Apr 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No. 250 of 2022.

                                                               Date of institution:   03.10.2022.

                                                               Date of decision:      18.04.2024.

 

Manoj Kumar s/o Shri Om Parkash, resident of N.Ho.137, Ward No.14, Balaji Colony, Karnal Road, Kaithal.

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

1. The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Claims Department SCO 156-159, 2^nd Floor, Sector-9C, Chandigarh.
2. The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited and Head Office: Bajaj Allianz House, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune-411006.
3. The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, near Fauzia Tower, Ambala Road, Kaithal, through its Branch Manager.

...Opposite Parties.

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

 

CORAM:   SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SHRI SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

 

Present:       Shri Vinod Jangra, Advocate for the complainant.   

                   Shri C.L. Uppal, Advocate for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

                   Opposite Party No.3 already ex-parte.

                  

ORDER  -  NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, against the OPs.

2.                It is alleged by the complainant that he got insured his vehicle motorcycle make Bajaj Discover DTS-Si Electric Start bearing Registration No.HR08M-3789 from OP No.1 vide policy No.OG-22-1701-1802-00056978 valid from 14.06.2021 to 13.06.2022. That on 22.06.2021, said motorcycle was standing in front of my house and was stolen from there and on the same day, he lodged his complaint with Police Helpline Number 100, while FIR No.290 dated 23.06.2021 u/s 379 of IPC was registered in PS Civil Line, Kaithal. That the untraced report dated 28.01.2022 was filed, before the CJM, Kaithal, by the police and same was accepted. That intimation in this regard was given to OP No.1 and he approached the OPs various times and requested to release the claim amount, but they failed to pay the same. The above act and conduct of OPs of not releasing his genuine claim, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part, due to which, he suffered huge physical harassment, mental agony as well as financial loss, constraining him, to file the present complaint, against the OPs, before this Commission.

3.             Upon notice of complaint, OPs No.1 & 2 appeared before this Commission and filed their written statement, whereas, OP No.3 failed to appear, before this Commission, on the date fixed i.e. 01.12.2022, despite receipt of notice, by this Commission, and was opted to be proceeded against ex-parte, on that date, by this Commission.

4.                OPs No.1 & 2, in their written statement admitted about issuing the insurance to the vehicle in question. It is further stated that the complainant has informed the OPs after a considerable and unexplained delay of 63 days of the alleged theft and in this regard, the OPs sent letter dated 01.10.2021 and 14.10.2021.  That after receiving the reply of letters dated 01.10.2021 and 14.10.2021, OPs sent registered letter dated 22.11.2021 that your reply is not found to be satisfactory also till date and you have not submitted both original keys. That in view of above, claim stands repudiated accordingly.

5.                To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C9.

6.                On the other hand, OPs No.1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure R-1 to R-4.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

8.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant got insured his motorcycle from OP No.1. He further argued that on 22.06.2021, said motorcycle was standing in front of house of complainant and was stolen from there and on the same day, FIR No.290 dated 23.06.2021 u/s 379 of IPC was registered in PS Civil Line, Kaithal. He further argued that the untraced report dated 28.01.2022 was filed before the CJM, Kaithal by the police and same was accepted. He further argued that intimation in this regard was given to OP No.1 and the complainant approached the OPs various times and requested to release the claim amount, but they failed to pay the same, which amounts to gross deficiency in service, on the part of OPs.

9.                On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 has argued that the complainant has informed the OPs after a considerable and unexplained delay of 63 days of the alleged theft and in this regard, the OPs sent letter dated 01.10.2021 and 14.10.2021. He further argued that the complainant has not submitted both the original keys with the OPs.

10.              Admittedly, the complainant is the registered owner of motorcycle make Bajaj Discover bearing Registration No.HR08M-3789 vide Registration Certificate Annexure C-2 and got insured the same from OP No.1 vide policy No.OG-22-1701-1802-00056978 valid from 14.06.2021 to 13.06.2022 with insured value of Rs.14473/-, as is evident from policy document Annexure C-3.

11.              As per complainant on 22.06.2021, the said motorcycle was stolen and in this regard, he lodged FIR bearing No.0290 dated 23.06.2021 u/s 379 of IPC in PS Civil Line, Kaithal Annexure C-1. Untraced report dated 28.01.2022 was filed, before the CJM, Kaithal, by the police and same was accepted vide order dated 28.01.2022 Annexure C-7. In this regard, the complainant lodged the claim with the OPs, which was repudiated by them vide letter dated 22.11.2021.

12.               Learned counsel for the complainant has alleged that the OPs have wrongly repudiated the genuine claim of complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service, on their part.

13.              Contrary to it, learned counsel for the OPs has firstly contended that the complainant has informed the OPs, after a considerable and unexplained delay of 63 days of the alleged theft and also failed to satisfy the OPs in this regard. But it is pertinent to mention that delay in intimating about the theft to the OPs, is no ground to repudiate the claim of complainant. In this regard, our view is fully supported by the case law titled Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satbir 2016(2) CLT page 434 (Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana), where in the head-note, it is mentioned that Insurance claim-Theft of insured tractor-Prompt FIR-Delay of 66 days in intimation to insurance company – Held - In the Circular Ref:IRDA/HLTH/MISC/ CIR/216/09/2011 dated September 20, 2011 issued by ‘IRDA’, it has been mentioned that genuine claims should not be rejected on account of delay in intimation, and that, the insurer’s decision to reject a claim must be based on “sound logic” and “valid grounds”-Insurance company is liable to indemnify the loss suffered by the complainant-Appeal dismissed.

14.              Learned counsel for the OPs has further contended that the second ground for repudiating the claim of complainant is that the complainant failed to submit both original keys of the motorcycle in question, with the OPs. OPs produced statement of complainant as Annexure R-4, on the case file. On its second page, complainant stated that both original keys of the motorcycle have been lost about five years ago. After that, I had got made a key, for this motorcycle from a key maker, from the local market and had been using the same for about 3-4 years. That key was kept at my house. I am probably remembering that my children have lost that key somewhere and if I find it, I will give it to you. If not found, then I cannot give the key.

15.              However, it is pertinent to mention here that during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that at this stage, the duplicate key of the motorcycle in question has been traced out, and he produced the said duplicate key, on the case file, as Mark-A.

16.              So, from the above facts, it is coming out that original keys of the motorcycle in question has been lost somewhere, from the complainant, about 5 years ago and then he got made some duplicate key, for the said motorcycle, from the market and using the same for the last three years, which was produced, by the complainant, during the course of arguments, on the case file as Mark-A. Hence in view of above facts, the second objection, taken by the OPs that the complainant failed to submit the original keys of the motorcycle in question, with them, has no force, because, as per complainant, those original keys has been lost somewhere by him and he was using the duplicate key to ride the motorcycle in question, which was also produced by him, on the case file.

17.              Keeping in view the case law, referred to above as well as facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the OPs insurance company has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant, on flimsy grounds, which amounts to gross deficiency in service, on the part of OPs.

18.              Now the question, which arises for consideration is what should be the quantum of indemnification? From the policy in question Annexure C-3, it is evident that the Insured Value of the motorcycle in question was Rs.14,473/-, as such, OPs is liable to pay the said amount, to the complainant along with compensation and litigation expenses.

19.              In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay the sum insured of Rs.14,473/- along with compensation amount of Rs.5,000/- + litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-, to the complainant, within a period of 45 days, from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the total award amount shall carry interest @6% simple per annum, from the date of filing the present complaint, till its actual realization.

20.              In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as non-compliance of Court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records, after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:18.04.2024.

                                                                                      (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                      President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, SSS.