Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/161/2018

Jasbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Polly Shera Adv. & Sudhir Kr. Pandey Adv.

21 Dec 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	161 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	14.03.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	21.12.2018

 

 

 

 

Jasbir Singh son of Ranbir Singh, R/o H.No.1046, Sector 7, Panchkula, Haryana 134107     

 

             ……..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  The Managing Director, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Ge, Plaza, Airport Road Yarawada, Pune 411006

 

2]  The Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO 156-159, 2^nd Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh 160009

 

………. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN            PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

            SH.RAVINDER SINGH         MEMBER

 

Argued By: Sh.Polly Shera & Sh.Sudhir Kr.Pandey, Advocates for  complainant.

Sh.Rajesh Verma, Adv. for OPs

 

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

         The case of the complainant, in brief is that, he purchased one mobile phone make Motorola Model Moto GSS from Ambika Enterprises, Sector-11, Panchkula for an amount of Rs.14,000/- on 16.9.2017 vide bill No.71302, dated 16.9.2017 (Ann.C-1).  The complainant also got the said mobile phone comprehensively insured from Bajaj Allianz Assurance Company Ltd. covering All Risk vide Policy No.OG-18-1201-9931-00002937  (Annexure C-2), dated 22.9.2017 by paying premium of Rs.1333/-.

 

         It is averred that on 2.11.2017 at about 9 a.m. the complainant was attending to a call received on his mobile and passing through the common toilet of two bed rooms situated in between the two rooms, incidentally he slipped on the wet floor and the mobile fell into a bucket of water kept in the toilet, thereby damaging the insured mobile phone in question. The complainant took the damage mobile to M/s Sant Rameshwari Enterprises, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh, an authorised service centre, who gave an estimate of repair of Rs.12,800.64p (Ann.C-3).  It is also averred that keeping in view the extent of damage and cost of repair, the complainant filed a claim with Opposite Party No.2 for cost of insured mobile and as such, he was issued Claim No.2010075261 (Ann.C-4).  However, the OPs rejected the claim of the complainant on the ground that the place at which the mobile phone fell into the water, thereby damaging it, was not covered under the insurance policy taken by the complainant (Ann.C-5).  Then the complainant sent a legal notice to the Opposite Parties but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The Opposite Parties have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the insurance policy was issued subject to terms & conditions.  It is stated that the claim lodged by the complainant was processed by an outsourced agency, which after going the claim related papers, informed that the loss reported is in fact caused due to poor care and gross negligence and the loss occurred entirely due to gross negligence and is not maintainable under the policy terms & conditions. It is stated that loss under the policy is indemnified only if the loss is related to insured equipment, if the same is used with due care. It is submitted that the claim was processed and rightly repudiated as “No Claim” vide letter dated 6.12.2017 after due application of mind and intimated to the complainant.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

3]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

5]       It has thoroughly been admitted in the complaint that the complainant purchased mobile phone make Motorola Model Moto GSS and has comprehensively been insured by OPs vide policy dated 22.9.2017 (Ann.C-2) on receipt of premium amount of Rs.1333/-.  It is evident that the claim lodged by the complainant with the Opposite Parties Insurance Company was repudiated claiming it out of purview of the policy terms & conditions.  The thorough perusal of the record, in particular reference to the terms & conditions so placed on record by the Opposite Parties, reveals that the complainant’s claim qua damaged mobile phone in question is fully covered under the scope of cover i.e. ‘accidental damage’ with specific reference that nowhere the claim of the complainant falls under the ‘exclusion’, as mentioned in the policy terms & conditions.

 

6]       The complainant on oath by submitting his duly sworn affidavit has submitted that due to his accidental slip, the mobile phone incidentally submerged in bucket of water. Thereafter, the complainant, as per the advice of the Opposite Parties, also procured the repair estimate from the authorised service centre and duly submitted the same along with claim documents to the OPs.

 

7]       To our considered opinion, the repudiation of the claim in the present complaint is unjustified as the same is well covered under the scope of insurance cover.  Therefore, the Opposite Parties are held liable for rendering deficient services to the complainant and also for rejecting his genuine insurance claim. Since, the estimated repair cost reflecting in the document i.e. Rs.12,800/- (Ann.C-3) is almost equivalent to the actual cost of the mobile handset in question, thus, we deem it appropriate that the OPs be ordered to make the refund of the actual price of the mobile handset in question after making the reasonable deduction as per the policy terms & conditions.

 

8]       In view of the above discussion & findings, the complaint is allowed with directions to the Opposite Parties to pay an amount of Rs.14,000/- being the cost of the mobile handset to the complainant after deducting 15% amount therefrom towards depreciation as per Depreciation Chart of the Insurance Policy in question, which is part of the terms & conditions of the policy, as placed on record by the OPs.  The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- to the complainant towards compensation and litigation expenses.

 

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties jointly & severally within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the Opposite Parties shall be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.5,000/- apart from the above relief. 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

21^st December, 2018                                                     Sd/-  

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER