Date of filing:- 22/03/2022.
Date of Order:-30/07/2024.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
B A R G A R H (ODISHA).
Consumer Complaint No. 02 of 2022.
Omprakash Ray, S/o Mahendra Ray, R/o-At- Godbhaga, Ps. Attabira, Dist. Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
-: V e r s u s :-
Regional Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., IInd Floor, V.S.S. Marg, Near Hotel Nikki, Sambalpur. ..... ..... ..... Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri M.B.Tripathy, Advocate with associates.
For the Opposite Party :- Sri A.K.Dash, Advocate.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Smt. Jigeesha Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Smt. Anju Agrawal ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.30/07/2024. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Smt. Jigeesha Mishra, President:-
1) The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is the Proprietor of M/s Jay Laxmi Auto and which shop was insured vide Policy No. OG-21-2412-4092-00001336 under the Opposite Party insurance company i.e. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited and the sum insured amount is ₹ 9,00,000/-(Rupees nine lakh)only. On 05-08-2021 during the policy period there was a burglary in the insured premises i.e. in the shop of Jay Laxmi Auto and three types of articles i.e. Tyre, Mobil, Chain kit has been stolen which costs of ₹ 4,58,147/-(Rupees four lakh fifty eight thousand one hundred forty seven)only with another articles which is not insured. The Opposite Party has appointed a Surveyor namely Shiba Prasad Padhi who has surveyed the loss without considering proper documents and information. After survey the Opposite Party has intimated on 24-09-2021 the Complainant to receive the settle amount of ₹ 1,04,167/-(Rupees one lakh four thousand one hundred sixty seven)only with full satisfaction instead of ₹ 4,58,147/-(Rupees four lakh fifty eight thousand one hundred forty seven)only the actual amount. The Complainant has intimated on 11-10-2021 through mail that he is agree to receive the settled amount with full satisfaction. In-spite the consent of the Complainant to receive the amount without full satisfaction the Opposite Party did not pay the settle amount and closed the claim on the ground of “no response” and intimated it through mail on 30-10-2021 which is arbitrary one. The non settlement of actual amount to the Complainant is a deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Hence the Complainant filed this case before this Commission.
2) The case of the Opposite Party is that the Opposite Party Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. filed its version. The Opposite Party admitted that Jay Laxmi Auto Proprietor-Om Prakash Ray was insured under shop keeper's policy vide police bearing No. OG-21-2412-4092-00001336 issued on 24-02-2021 and the policy was valid from 20-02-2021 to 19-02-2022. The Opposite Party submitted that the Opposite Party has appointed an IRDA licensed surveyor promptly upon receipt of the claim intimation and the surveyor after thorough verification of all the available records, documents and physical inspection has made an assessment of loss to the tune of ₹ 1,04,173/-(Rupees one lakh four thousand one hundred seventy three)only subject to terms and conditions of the policy. A number of mails dated 24-09-2021, 02-10-2021, 07-10-2021, 12-10-2021 and finally on 28-10-2022 were sent to the insured. But there was no response from the insured. Hence the claim was finally repudiated vide letter dated 30-10-2022. There is no any deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party.
3) Perused of complaint petition, version and documents filed by the Parties and following issues are framed :-
Issues
- Whether the Opposite Party is deficient in service ?
- Whether Complainant is entitled to get relief ?
Issue No.1(one)
4) The policy is admitted and during the currency of the policy on 05-08-2021 the burglary was occurred. The Opposite Party repudiated the claim on the ground no response from the insured. After perusal of record it reveals that on 11-10-2021 the Complainant sent mail to the Opposite Party to receive the settled amount without full satisfaction. It was the duty of the Opposite Party to settle the claim. But the Opposite Party close the claim and repudiated vide letter dated 30-10-2021. Non-settlement of claim amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. The issue is answered accordingly.
Issue No.2(two)
5) For deficiency in service of the Opposite Party the Complainant is entitled to get relief. The insured estimated the loss amount at ₹ 7,69,511/-(Rupees seven lakh sixty nine five hundred eleven)only. As per surveyor report the gross loss amount is ₹ 4,58,147/-(Rupees four lakh fifty eight one hundred forty seven)only. But the surveyor deducted and assessed the net loss amount at ₹ 1,04,173/-(Rupees one lakh four thousand one hundred seventy three)only. When the surveyor assessed gross loss amount, there is no need of further deduction. The Complainant is entitled to get ₹ 4,58,147/-(Rupees four lakh fifty eight one hundred forty seven)only which the surveyor assessed as damaged stock during investigation. The issue is answered accordingly.
As per supra discussion the following order is passed:-
O R D E R
6) The Complaint is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs. 4,58,147/-(Rupees four lakh fifty eight thousand one hundred forty seven)only to the Complainant within one month from the date of this order. Further the Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs. 40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand)only compensation for deficiency in service and Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only for litigation expenses to the Complainant, failing which, the entire awarded amount shall carry 12%(twelve percent) interest per annum till realization.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30th day of July 2024.
Supply free copies to the Parties.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, ( Smt.Jigeesha Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
(Smt. Anju Agrawal)
M e m b e r(w).
