Case Title: Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Ravi Kumar
Summary
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company appealed to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar, after the District Commission ruled in favor of a vehicle claimant. The complainant had failed to disclose their vehicle’s commercial registration when insured under a private car policy. Despite a confirmed theft, the State Commission overturned the District Commission’s decision, citing policy violations due to non-disclosure, thereby denying the claim.
About the case
The appeal lodged by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company was permitted by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar bench, which is composed of Ms. Geeta Verma (Presiding Member) and Md. Shamim Akhtar (Judicial Member). According to the State Commission, it was justified in rejecting a vehicle claim because the proprietor of the vehicle neglected to disclose that it was registered as a commercial vehicle at the time of policy acquisition. The repudiation was deemed legitimate due to the fact that the insurance policy was limited to personal vehicles.
The Complainant acquired a Bolero motor vehicle and insured it with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company (“Insurance Company”). The vehicle was seized by unknown individuals during the policy’s duration. The local police were informed of the larceny, and a FIR was filed. Additionally, the Insurance Company received a subsequent claim. A representative of the insurance company was assigned to inquire about the incident. The Insurance Company received an inquiry report. Nevertheless, the Insurance Company denied the claim. The Insurance Company did not respond to the Complainant’s legal notice. The Complainant lodged a consumer complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, East Champaran, Bihar (“District Commission”), as a result of her grievance.
The Insurance Company argued that the complaint was barred by limitation due to the fact that it was lodged three years after the alleged theft. Additionally, the vehicle was registered as a commercial vehicle, despite being insured as a private vehicle. Consequently, the Complainant violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
The complaint was approved by the District Commission on the basis of the inquiry report, which corroborated the larceny. The Complainant was directed to receive Rs. 5,48,105/- and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs from the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company lodged an appeal with the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar (“State Commission”) in response to its dissatisfaction with the District Commission’s decision.
The State Commission reviewed the policy and determined that the vehicle was indeed insured under a private car package policy. The policy encompassed the use of the vehicle for any purpose, with the exception of the carriage of products for hire and reward. The State Commission also reviewed the vehicle’s registration certificate and determined that it was registered as a taxi, a commercial vehicle.
It was determined that the Complainant neglected to disclose this information to the Insurance Company at the time of policy acquisition. Consequently, he contravened the policy’s terms and conditions. Consequently, the State Commission granted the appeal and vacated the District Commission’s order.
