Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 7343
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Lalhmingmawia, CJ, C.Lalrinkima, J, P.C.Vanlalremruati, J
Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Shri Malsawmkima Royte – Respondent
FA Misc 2 2024 | FA Misc 1 2024 | FA 3 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Pradeep Chhetri
For the Respondents: H.Lalrosangi
Failure to formally lodge a claim with an insurer negates liability for deficiencies in service by another party.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 11 - Insurance Claim - Complaint regarding compensation for mental agony and hardship - The complaint argues that the insurance company failed to act upon the report of the accident, thus leading to mental distress. (Paras 2, 3)
(B) Deficiency of Service - The court found no evidence from the complainant that the insurance claim was formally initiated, thus ruling that the insurance company could not be held liable for the actions of another party without a proper claim. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The complainant sought Rs.1,00,000/- compensation from Zothan Auto Works for causing mental distress after an accident involving an insured vehicle, yet claimed no compensation directly from the insurance company.
Findings of Court:
The insurance company did not have a direct complaint filed against it, nor was it responsible for the portions of service by Zothan Auto Works which led to the claims. The previous ruling by the District Commission was deemed quashed.
Issues: The main issue addressed was whether the insurance company was liable for the mental agony claimed when no formal complaint was raised against it.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the insurers could not be penalized for the deficiencies of another party not involved in the appeal nor a direct claimant, reinforcing the principle that a formal claim procedure must be followed.
Result: The Judgment Order of the Aizawl District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission is hereby quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. basis of claim and initial complaint. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. response and argument from the insurance firm. (Para 4) |
OFFICE OF THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALC OMMISSION TUIKHUAHTLANG:M IZORAM: AIZAWL FA Misc 2 2024 with . F A M1'sc 1 024 with FA 3 2024 In the matter of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd., GE Plaza Pune-41006 MaharashtraB ranch Office 2nd Floor Sreeji Tower Christian Basti GS Road Guwahati Versus Shri MalsawmkimaR oyte S/o Zoliana Royte, Khatla, Aizawl Advocate for the appellant Pradeep Chhetri Advocate for the respondent H.Lalrosangi Before Hon'ble interim PresidentL alhmingmawia Hon'ble Member C.Lalrinkima Hon'ble Member P.C.Vanlalremruati Date of Order 27.5.2025 ORDER This appeal pertains to a complaint filed in District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Aizawl District (herein refer to as District Commission) wherein the Complainant filed a complaint against Zothan Auto Works to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-for causing mental agony, stress and unnecessaryh ardship, however, the DistrictC ommission asked to pay the Appellant to pay Rs.50,000/-instead in Consumer Case No.33 of 2021 on 21.02.2024.
2. The Complainant/RespondenMt r. Malsawmkima Royte submitted a complaint in the District Commission against zothan Auto Works and Bajaj Allianz stating that his vehicle SK 407 (Tipper) bearing registration No.MZ0l L9909 met an accident at Lungdai on 25.11.2019 around 7.00 pm due to slippery condition of the road. The vehicle was towed to Zothan Auto Works for repairing. The vehicle was insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. The original complaint mention that the vehicle was insured with the Appellant and has always been renewed on time and no insurance was issued by the insurer till date. The Respondent demande~ compensation from zothan Auto Works to pay compensationo f Rs.1,00,000/-for causing mental agony, stress and unnecessary hardship. The complaint was file under Section 11 of the Consumer ProtectionA ct, 1986.
3. The DistrictC ommission in their judgements pecificallyw ritten:
"Opposite Party No.2 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company also submitted written statement through their Learned Counsel Mr: Pradeep ChhetryA dvocate objecting the prima facie no cause of action has arisen in favour of the material facts from this Hon'ble Commission. It is submittedt hat no intimationo f alleged loss has ever been given to the answeringr espondentb y the complainanto r any of her agent or representativea nd no documenth as been submitteda nd hence without any claim intimation and documents, any claim cannot be processed further and hence the present complaint is not maintainablea nd liable to be dismissed.
"The Complainantd id not inform the insurancec ompanyi n time about the allegedi ncidenta nd did not lodge the claim within a reasonablet ime as prescribed under the policy terms and conditions.A s per the policy terms and conditions,t he insuredi s requiredt o intimate the loss to the insurancec ompanyi mmediatelyb ut in the present case, the intimation of the incident was not at all given to the insurancec ompanyw hich is a fundamentalb reach of terms and conditionso f the policy."
4. The District Commission in the judgement mixed up OP No.1 and OP No.2, "On the other hand, the complainanth as alwaysa pproachedt he O.P.No.2Z othanA uto Works for his insurance and never Informedh im about the tie up partnershipw ith the Bajaj AllianzI nsurance company Instead, they submitteda ll the Insurance document belongs to the complainantt o the BajajA llianzi ns.co and receivedt he said insuranced ocument file by BajajA llianzi ns.co. through, by their staff which they cannots ay his name but a man who look thin body. The BajajI nsuranceA llianza lso sent their surveyorM r:Durba, to have spot verificationa nd take photo of the accidentv ehiclest rippe,; as statedb y the witnessesM r.MaxK hawngsaia nd C.Lalrochhuanas taff of Zothan Auto Work. This means that the O.P.No. 1
