MUKUL AGGARWAL AND ORS. Vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a complaint under Section 12 read with Section 17(1)(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter called the Act) for the following reliefs:

(2.) COMPLAINANT decided to purchase a BMW car for his personal use applied to his company for loan under its car lease scheme. A loan of Rs. 26,92,229 was sanctioned in the month of May 2012. On 17.5.2012 complainant -1 purchased a BMW 3 Series Model Subtype -320D, Car mtg 2012, for an amount of Rs. 23,46,278. He also paid an amount of Rs. 3,45,991 to OP -3 towards insurance charges, BMW secure, registration road tax, logistic and other taxes. Monthly EMI of the said car is being regularly deducted from the salary of the complainant -1 and being paid to Sundram Finance. The present price of the car is Rs. 34,10,516 (Annexure -4). The complainant -1 also paid an amount of Rs. 83,989 plus taxes to OP -3 to get his car insured from OP -1 as premium for two insurance policies viz., Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. for private car and BMW secure for a sum assured of Rs. 29,46,278 (Annexure -5) for additional protection in case of total loss within one year of purchase of the vehicle, wherein the car would be replaced with a new one of the same type, inclusive of all cost of registration, tax and insurance.

(3.) THE complainant applied for insurance claim immediately on 30.7.2012 but he was told by the officials of OP -3 that inadvertently the Chassis number and engine number were incorrect by entered in the insurance papers provided by the OP -1. The necessary corrections were made shortly by OP -1 (Annexure -11) which through its letter (Annexure -11) acknowledged the claim form date 30.7.2012. Also attached as (Annexure -12) is the claim form dated 9.8.2012 with corrected details. OP -3 informed the complainant on 9.8.2012 that the error has been corrected and the claim number was intimated (Annexure -13). After necessary corrections by OP -1, the complainant immediately applied for the insurance claim by submitting two insurance claim forms including the BMW secure claim on 9.8.2012 with the OP - 1 through OP -3 for indemnification of the insured amount of Rs. 29,46,278 and also by replacement of car in accordance with the BMW secure advanced insured cover. This has been admitted by the OP -1 through letter dated 9.1.2013 (Annexure -11). Thereafter complainant made inquiries and personal visits for settlement of the claim. E -mails were also sent to expedite the process but no cogent reply was given by the OP -1. Therefore, complainant had no option but to approach State Commission with a complaint on 7.12.2012. Through order dated 12.12.2012, the OP was directed to takes decision on claim of the complainant within a month of the receipt of the order, even after the service of the order of the State Commission on 13.12.2012 (copy of which is Annexure -15) the OPs did not settle the claim, which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs., which also amounts to indulgence to unfair trade practice by the OPs. Later on OPs through letter dated 9.1.2013 (Annexure -11) repudiated the insurance claim which is most unfair and unjust, the complainant therefore pressed his complaint before Hon'ble State Commission. Notices were issued to OPs who appeared and contested the complaint.