Haryana

Karnal

CC/275/2022

Yogesh Saini - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Bhardwaj

16 May 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No. 275 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt.13.05.2022

                                                        Date of Decision:16.05.2022

 

Yogesh Saini son of Shri Rajender, resident of 160 Naib Colony, Kanwala, near Military Gate, Ambala.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     The Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Chandigarh.

2.     The Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. CE Plaza, 1^st floor, Airport Road Yerawada, Pune-411006.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary….Member

 

Argued by:  None for complainant.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:

 

                Complaint presented today. It be checked and registered. 

 

                Today the case was fixed for consideration on the point of admissibility of the complaint. Neither complainant nor anyone put in appearance on behalf of complainant.

2.             The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that the complainant got insured his vehicle bearing registration no.HR26BC-9287 with the OPs, vide policy no.OG-21-1908-1801-00000963, valid from 09.07.2020 to 08.07.2021, for a sum of Rs.8,11,961/-. The said vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 15.02.2021 at Karnal and information in this regard given to OPs and Shri B.B. Chawla appointed as surveyor. OPs refused to give the insurance claim on the ground that complainant had already enjoyed NCB-50% on premium amount. Infact, complainant did not know about the NCB. The NCB has given by the agent of the OPs without consent of complainant. After that on 08.07.2021 insurance company demanded pending NCB amount through email. Thereafter, 0n 09.07.2021 complainant deposited Rs.6456/- to OPs. It is further averred that complainant had lodged a claim with office of Insurance Ombudsman and same has been allowed, vide order dated 24.01.2022 by directing to pay admissible claim amount to complainant less 50% subject to terms and conditions of the policy within 30 days. As per said order OPs are liable to pay 50% of claim amount of Rs.8,11,961/-, but OPs issued DD no.829710 dated 28.02.2022 of Rs.2,84,513/-only which is less amount equal to 50% of claim amount of Rs.4,05,980/-. When OPs received NCB amount from complainant then OPs are liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. Complainant also paid Rs.100/- per day as parking charges and 2% estimate charges also. Thereafter, complainant requested the OPs several times to release the remaining claim amount, but OPs always postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly refused to pay the same. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             It has been mentioned in the complaint that OPs have refused to give insurance claim on the ground that complainant had already enjoyed NCB-50% on premium amount. As per version of the complainant, OPs appointed Shri B.B. Chawla as surveyor. Complainant already had challenged the repudiation letter before the Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh. The Insurance Ombudsman passed an award, which as under:-

“In the light of above, insurance company is directed to pay admissible claim amount to the complainant less 50% of claim amount for wrong NCB slab (50%) subject to terms and conditions of the policy within 30 days from the receipt of award copy and shall send a compliance report to this office for information and record”.

3.             It is also mentioned in the complaint that OPs have already paid Rs.2,84,513/- to the complainant on 28.02.2022. The complainant has claimed 50% of the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle. On perusal of the record, that the vehicle in question has become totally damaged in the alleged accident. Furthermore, complainant has also not placed on record, the report of surveyor B.B.Chawla to prove how much loss has been assessed by the said surveyor. Neither complainant nor his counsel has come forwarded to assist this Commission.

4.             Hence, in view of the above discussion, present complaint is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission. However, the complainant is at liberty to file the fresh complaint before the competent court of law, if so desired. Party concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room.

Announced
Dated: 16.05.2022

                                                                 President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

       

                (Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)      

                      Member                        Member