DIST. CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESAL  COMMISSION

NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.

 C.C. No. 69/2020

Date of Filing:                      Date of Admission:             Date of Disposal:

                   01.10.2020                                   08.10.2020                              05.06.2023

P R E S E N T                 :-   Smt. Monisha Shaw …………………. Member.

                                          :-   Sri.  Abhijit Basu      …………………. Member.

            JUDGMENT

            The complainant filed this case U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

            The brief facts of the case is Complainant purchased / made one insurance policy from Opposite Party No. 1 being Policy No. OG-17-2401-1183-00003969 in respect of the vehicle of the Complainant vide No. WB-23C/9359 for any kind of damage of said vehicle. The said policy was valid from 28/06/20216 to 27/06/2017. During the validity period on 06/07/2016 the said vehicle vide No. WB-23C/9359 of the Complainant made with a road accident under P.S. Sohela, District – Baragarh, State – Orissa and said accident has been registered vide P.S. Case No. 137 dated 06/07/2016 U/s 279/304A of Indian Penal Code and due to the said accident the said vehicle of the Complainant sustained heavy damage and therefore, the Complainant deposited the said vehicle to authorize service centre and workshop of the Opposite Party, of Plot No. 12, village – remed, Post – Bareipale, Sambalpur, Orissa. Thereafter, Complainant lodged a claim before the Opposite Party No. 1 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. under a coverage of damage claim vide claim No. – OC- 17-2403-1803-000000132. One surveyor named Shakti Prasad Nandi appeared on behalf of said Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. and inspected the said damaged vehicle of the complainant at workshop and collected all relevant documents from the complainant including copy of F.I.R. and copy of seizure list and copy of vehicular papers and copy of driving license of driver from the Complainant.  The said EICHER, VE Commercial vehicles Ltd. (authorized service centre of workshop) issued documents regarding estimagted value for repairing cost of said vehicle as Rs. 8,57,781/- and the said vehicle is still remain under the said workshop authority.

Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./

: :  2  : :

C.C. No. 69/2020

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. is not yet approved the cost of repairing of said vehicle even after receiving the said papers from his authorized service centre workshop and also from surveyor. The said vehicle is under the custody of said authorized workshop. Having no other alternative the Complainant issued legal notices through Ld. Advocate on 19/09/2019 and 29/02/2020 but in vein. The Complainant submits that Opposite Parties repudiated the claim of the Complainant illegally and arbitrarily, hence the Complainant filed this case.

            The notices issued to the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties appeared before this Commission and filed Written Version. The Opposite Party admitted that the Complainant purchased the insurance under the type of commercial vehicle insurance package policy for accident coverage of Complainant’s vehicle. The O.Ps received information about accident and F.I.R within time. It is also admitted that O.P sent IRDA approved surveyor to assess the damage cost. The O.P submits and alleged that on 08/07/2016, 15/07/2016, 22/07/2016, 06/09/2016 send letters for produce some documents and again on 15/03/2017 and 24/03/2017 O.P send letters for producing the said alleged vehicle for re-inspection along with salvage and also requested for submission for final repair bills (original) with payment receipt within 07 days but documents were not claimed on said two letters and lastly on 13/04/2017 O.Ps send letter to the Complainant that his claim stands repudiated for non co-operation and non submission of required documents as stated in earlier letters. The Opposite Parties admitted the legal notice send by the Advocate Atanu Dutta on 17/09/2019 and also submitted bill dated 31/05/2018. The O.Ps submitted that for non co-operation from the part of the Complainant O.P had failed to finally inspect the said vehicle and lack of final original repaired bill and payment receipt. The Opposite Parties repudiated the claim of the Complainant. Hence, the Complainant filed this case for illegal repudiation by the Opposite Parties. The vehicle is still under the custody of the workshop of Opposite Parties.

Issue raised for delivery judgment

1. Whether the case is maintainable or not?

2.Whether the case filed within time or not?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or reliefs or not?
 

Reason for Judgment

            Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the nature and character of the case all the points are interlinked with each other as such all the points are taken up together.

            The residential address of the Complainant is within the jurisdiction of this Commission, therefore as per section 34 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to try this case. The pecuniary jurisdiction is also within the jurisdiction of this Commission. Hence, this Commission has ample power to try this case.

            As per section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Complainant is a consumer as he purchased an insurance policy from the Opposite Party No. 1 being policy no. OG-17-2401-1803-00003969 in respect of vehicle – WB-23C/9359 for any kind of damage of the said vehicle. Complainant paid charges for purchase said insurance policy. Therefore, the Complainant is a consumer. Opposite Parties are service provider as the Complainant paid the fees and O.Ps received the fees as such the O.Ps are liable to provide the service. In the instant case the O.P members informed regarding the accident of vehicle when the vehicle of Complainant met an accident. The Complainant lodged F.I.R., and lodged a claim before the O.P. no. 1 under coverage of damage claim as per said policy within the stipulated period.

After lodging the claim on behalf of the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. one surveyor named Shakti Prasad Nandi inspected the said damage vehicle of the complainant at the workshop of the authorized service centre of the Opposite Parties. The said surveyor collected all relevant documents from the Complainant including copy of F.I.R and copy of seizure list and copy of all vehicular papers and copy of driving license of driver from the Complainant.

Contd. To Page No. 3 . . . ./

: :  3  : :

C.C. No. 69/2020

The estimated value of repairing cost of said vehicle was estimated by the authorized service centre of workshop of the Opposite Parties. Therefore, all the documents were collected by the surveyor of the Opposite Parties. It is the duty of the appointed surveyor to produce all papers including his report before the Opposite Parties. The surveyor would be treated as agent and / or representative of the Opposite Parties. As he collected all the documents as such the O.P. could not repudiate the claim on the ground for non-submission of documents.

Moreover, O.P. investigated the matter by appointing his surveyor. No compliance raised by the surveyor against driver of driving license on anything. No such complain placed before this Commission by O.P. Moreover, the accidental car was and is under the custody of the authorized service centre and workshop of the Opposite Parties for repair the damages. The Opposite Parties were not issued any approval letter to his authorized service centre & workshop even after sending all papers. The Opposite Parties i.e. insurance company cannot repudiated claim merely on the ground of non-submission of documents after sending letter. Here, the Opposite Parties is not submitted track report or any such prove from which it would revealed that the Complainant received the letters. The Opposite Parties send surveyor and he also collected all documents. Accident occurred within the insured period F.I.R lodged by Complainant, the insured vehicle was and is in the custody of authorized service centre and workshop of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

            As per submission of the Complainant, he submitted all documents to O.Ps at the time of claim and also the surveyor of the O.P. and the authorized service centre and workshop of O.P. However, it was not proved by the Opposite Party that any information was fraudulent information. Insurance company cannot repudiated claim merely on the ground that Complainant has no interest to proceed with his claim. O.P is not filed any track report from which it proves that the said letters/notices received by the Complainant.

            Here, Complainant is a consumer and Opposite Parties are service provider but Opposite Parties did not provide service properly which is deficiency of service. Insurance company cannot repudiated claim merely on the ground for non-submission of documents after sending the letter. O.P is not submit track report from which it revealed that the Complainant received the letter for produce the documents. Though O.P received documents earlier through his surveyor and workshop also. Repudiation of Insurance claim by insurance company is not justified. It was not proved that any information was fraudulent information. Hence, we considered that the repudiation of Complainant’s claim by Opposite Parties are not justified.

Hence,

It is ordered,

            That the case being No. C.C./69/2020 be and the same is allowed with contest.

We are in view that the repudiation of insurance claim is not justified. Hence, the order of repudiation is set-aside and it is directed to Opposite Parties to pay the repairing cost of the Complainant’s vehicle and return the said vehicle from workshop after receiving the documents within the limits of coverage of insurance policy amount with Rs. 20,000/- for litigation cost within 02 (two) months from the date of this judgment. Failing which the Complainant has liberty to file execution case as per law.

Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.

Dictated & Corrected by me   

Member

Member                                                                                 Member