Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/253/2019

Surender kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Alliance. - Opp.Party(s)

Narender Katwal

30 Jan 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSASL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

                                                                Complaint Case No. : 253 of 2019

                                                                Date of Institution    : 20.05.2019

                                                                Date of decision:      : 30.01.2024

 

Surender Kumar son of Sh. Lachhman Ram R/o Opposite Bansi Lal Park, Madhur Colony, Halwas Gate, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

                                                            ...Complainant. 

 

                                                    Versus.

1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Block No.04, 7^th Floor, DLF Tower 15, Shivaji Marg, Delhi-110015, through  Claim Manager.

 

2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited having one of its registered office at Ma Bhawani Financial Services, Rohtak Gate, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani, through its Branch Manager.

 

...Opposite parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

Before: -       Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

                    Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

Present:        Sh. M. R. Tundwal, Advocate for complainant.

                    Sh. Rajender Verma, Advocate for OP No.1. (MOA filed today).

OP No.2 given up.

 

                                                  ORDER

 

SAROJ BALA BOHRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.                 Brief facts of the case, as per amended complaint are that complainant is owner of a car Hyundai Grand i-10 having regn. No.HR-61C-8641 which was insured with OP vide policy No.OG-18-3287-1803-00000066. On 25.06.2018, son of complainant Mr. Rahi Singhwaiya went alongwith his friend Rakesh son of Ved Parkash and Manish son of Sh.Krishan, to leave Manish at Railway Station, Loharu. The car was parked in GRP parking and received a parking token No.72 dated 25.06.2018. On returning, the vehicle was not parked there, it was searched but in vain. OP insurance company was informed qua the incident. FIR No.110 dated 26.06.2018 U/s 379 IPC was got registered at GRP, Rewari.   Complainant has alleged that the car was stolen so claim was lodged with the OP company, completing all formalities, however, the claim was repudiated, despite submitting all requisite documents, vide letter dated 14.11.2018, on grounds that ‘you have not changed the lockset of the vehicle and that said car was kept at Railway Authorized Parking place, after obtaining the token receipt, in that event the entire responsibility lies with the Railway Authority Parking but not with our company.’ Then legal notice dated 13.02.2019 was got served upon the OP but of no avail.  Hence, the present complaint has been preferred alleging deficiency in service, causing monetary loss besides harassment to the complainant and to seek directions against the OPs to pay claim of the vehicle Rs.5,05,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of causing the occurrence and further to pay compensation of Rs.1.00 lac for harassment.  Any other relief to which this Commission deems fit has also been sought.

2.                 Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua maintainability, estoppel, locus standi, cause of action, non-joinder of necessary parties as Financer of the vehicle is HDFC Bank Ltd. Bhiwani and GRP authorities where the vehicle was parked,  jurisdiction and suppression of material facts. On merits, It is stated that on receiving intimation regarding theft of the car, OP deputed an independent Investigator, who submitted report dated 14.08.2018 and after going through the report, it was found that as per statement of complainant, one of original key of the vehicle stolen was lost/misplaced one month prior to the theft of the vehicle yet he did not change the lock-set and hence, it was inferred that no reasonable steps were taken by the complainant to safeguard of the vehicle which is violation of terms and condition no.4 of the insurance policy. It has submitted that besides letter dated 14.11.2018, the letters dated 05.10.2018 and 24.01.2019 were also sent to the complainant informing him about repudiation of his claim. As such, the answering OP has denied deficiency in service on his part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                 In evidence of complainant, his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and affidavit of Mr. Rahi Singhwaiya Ex. CW2/A  alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-15 were tendered and closed the evidence.

4.                 On the other side, learned counsel for OP No.1 tendered in evidence, affidavit of Mr. Eileen Rose Tirkey, Assistant Manager Legal of OP company as Ex. RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-12 and closed the evidence.

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

6.                 Perusal of photocopy of registration certificate (Annexure C-1) reveals that the complainant is registered owner of the vehicle in question.  Annexure C-2 is the insurance policy qua the vehicle for the relevant period of time and IDV of the vehicle was Rs.5,05,000/-.  FIR (Annexure C-4) and Final report U/s 173 Cr.P.C. (Annexure C-7) reveal that the vehicle was theft on 25.05.2018 and it could not be traced out during investigation of the police.  Perusal of Investigation Theft Report (Annexure R-3), its conclusion para shows that  From the statements of the neighbors, the police report and other circumstantial evidences, we are of the opinion that the vehicle had actually been stolen. The insurers may take appropriate action as per the policy conditions. The repudiation of the claim of complainant by OP insurance company has been made vide letter dated 14.11.2018 (Annexure R-6) on grounds that Original key of the vehicle was lost one month prior to the theft of the vehicle yet complainant not changed the lockset to safeguard the vehicle which is violation of condition No.4 of the vehicle. Secondly, The vehicle was parked by complainant in an authorized parking place of railways authority, therefore, the responsibility of parking contractor to take reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss.’

7.                 After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, we are of the view that OP has admitted in its pleadings that the vehicle was parked by complainant in an authorized parking area of railways which means that complainant was aware about safeguard of the vehicle.  In this regard, parking charges slip (Annexure R-4) has been placed on record by OP. Non-production of key by the complainant is not fatal to the case of complainant. Further there is sufficient material on record which makes complainant entitled for the IDV claim of the stolen vehicle and thus OPs remained negligent and deficient in releasing the claim to the complainant which has caused monetary loss, mental pain and physical harassment to the complainant. NOC, if any, qua financed amount of vehicle has not been placed on record from complainant side despite raising this point.  As such, the complaint is allowed and OPs, jointly and severally, are directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the communication of this order:-

(i)       To pay a sum of Rs.5,05,000/- (Rs. Five lac five thousand) as IDV, to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint till its realization subject to completing formalities viz. letter of Subrogation & affidavit etc. qua transfer of vehicle in question in favour of OP Insurance Company by the complainant within 15 days from the date of communication of this order.

          Since, it has come on record that the vehicle was financed with HDFC Bank Ltd., therefore, the OP is further directed, first to pay the amount of financer bank, if any, and then remaining amount be paid to the complainant.

(ii)      To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) on account of harassment  caused to the complainant.

(iii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs.5,500/- (Rs.Five thousand five hundred) towards litigation expenses.

                    Further the award in question/directions issued above must be complied with by the OPs within the stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts  shall further attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default.

                    If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced.

Dated:30.01.2024.