Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1250/2008

Sunil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Bajaj Allanz General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

26 Feb 2019

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTRICT NEW DELHI,  M-BLOCK, 1^ST FLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P. ESTATE. NEW DELHI-1100001.

 

C.C.No.1250/2008

 

Sh. Sunil Kumar,

S/o  Sh. R.D. Sharma,

R/o 164, Village & Post,

Bakkarwala,

Delhi-41.                                                                                                                                                                               ……Complainant

Vs.

 

Bajaj Allianz  General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Regional Office: C-31/32,

1^st &  2^nd Floor,

 Connaught Place,

New Delhi-110001.

….Opposite Party

 

 

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

 

 

O R D E R

 

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is owner of a car bearing  No.DL3CV1659 make Hundai Sonata Gold. The complainant filed the claim in respect of alleged car  with the OP as the above car could not  be traced out by the police authorities.  That after taking his cloths from drycleaner and putting it into his vehicle, the complainant went to the hotel for dinner. When he came back, he did not found his  vehicle.  Finally,  on 10.08.2006, the untraced report was given by the police station Vikas Puri.  The complainant has made repeated request to the OP for processing the claim  and also submitted the untraced report.  Vide letter dated 07.09.2006 but the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OP  without any cogent reason.  It is stated in the repudiation letter that “perusal of the documents and written statement show that the vehicle  has been taken away with the key which was left inside the ignition switch, hence the incident occurred due to the gross negligence by the complainant.  It is submitted that no such incident has occurred as the key of the vehicle was provided to the OP.  The complainant approached the OP to release the claim amount but nothing has been done by the OP, hence this complaint.

2.     Complaint has been contested by OP.  OP has filed its written statement, denying any deficiency in services on its part.  It is stated by OP that the investigator has categorically observed in his report that the incident occurred due to the negligence of the insured and that he had left the car unattended with the keys inside the ignition lock, hence the claim was rightly repudiated  as per policy condition No.4 of private car package policy.  It is further stated that on perusal of the loan papers of the complainant it is seen that the asset cost is  Rs.4,50,000/- and the amount finance was Rs.3,75,000/- whereas the policy IDV  is Rs.9.52,000/- thus it is clear that despite having asset value of Rs.4,50,000/-,  the complainant has opted which is nearly double.  It further prayed that the complaint be dismissed on these grounds.

3.     Complainant has filed his evidence by way of affidavit.  He has placed on record photocopy of Policy referred above, photocopy of FIR, photocopies of communications letters and copy of repudiation letter dated 7.9.2006 in support of his case.

4.     On the other hand Ms. Sunanda Nimisha, Manager,(Legal) of OP has filed affidavit in evidences testifying all the facts as stated in the written statement in support of its case. All the parties have also filed their respective written submissions.

5.     We have carefully gone through the record of the case and have heard the submissions of Ld. Counsels for all the parties.

6.     In the present case, perusal of the FIR shows that after taking his cloths from drycleaner and putting it into his vehicle, the complainant went to the hotel for dinner. When he came back, he did not found his vehicle.  He further argued that before leaving the car he locked the same properly and key was in his possession.  The investigator has narrated whole incident as per his sweet will and he has already furnished the key to the investigator. It is further stated on behalf of complainant that he received only one key from V.R. Car Division as he has purchased the alleged vehicle in auction and in support of his contention, he has relied upon the letter issued by V.R. Car Division.  

7.     It is argued on behalf of OP that  the present complaint is liable to be dismissed as the complainant did not approach this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts that last user left the ignition keys in its lock and forgot to take off  the keys. This fact came to knowledge of OP, upon the enquiry made during the investigation. The investigator was appointed in the present case, who recorded the statement of the complainant, wherein he confirmed that the vehicle was left unattended with keys in the vehicle.  It has been further pleaded that the conduct of the complainant has been negligent in security of the vehicle in question. Due to this act, complainant having willfully breached the policy conditions, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief.  It has also been stated that the complainant  being the user of vehicle was under contractual obligation to take proper care and precaution to save the vehicle from any loss as per the terms & condition of policy, which he failed to do so.

8.     We are not in agreement with the contention of the OP.  The complaint itself stated in his complaint as well as in his affidavit that he had already furnished the key of the car to the Investigator and the second key was never issued to him by V.R. Car Division from whom he purchased the alleged vehicle.  In support of his contention he has drawn our attention towards the letter issued by the V.R. Car Division revealing the facts that the vehicle was sold to the complainant for a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- and only one key was issued to the complainant.  On the contrary, OP has failed to place on record any document which shows that the complainant has not surrendered the single key of the vehicle in question to it. The second allegation regarding the asset value of the vehicle was Rs.4,50,000/- and the complainant has opted IDV to its double. OP has failed to place on record the documents, which shows that the asset value of the vehicle in question is Rs.4,50,000/-. The copy of the statement of the complainant attached with Investigator report clearly shows that he has purchased the vehicle for a sum of Rs.6,70,000/-.  So, keeping in view, the documents placed on record ,  we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled to receive the entire IDV of the vehicle. Accordingly, Forum is of the view that the claim should be awarded on non-standard basis. 

9.     In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the rejection of the claim of the complainant by OP Insurance Co. was not justified and was arbitrary. We therefore hold, OP guilty of deficiency in services and direct it as under:-

 

1. Settle the claim of the complainant on non-standard basis on the IDV mentioned in the Insurance Policy  along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 5.9.2008 till its realization.

 

2. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.15,000/- toward compensation for pain and  mental agony suffered by him in addition to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of cost  of litigation.

 

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order. If the said amount is not paid by the OP within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, the same shall be recovered by the complainant along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till recovery of the said amount. This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post.

Announced in open Forum on 26/02/2019. 

 

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

          PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                  (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                                MEMBER