SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 21135

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
RAHUL JAIN – Appellant
Versus
BAJAJ ALLIANCE GIC – Respondent
SC/23/CC/17/22



Daily Order

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                                   CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.22 OF 2017

                                                                                                                           FILED ON 23.02.2017

                                                                                                 DECIDED ON 31.05.2023

 

RAHUL JAIN,

S/O SHRI A. K. JAIN,

R/O HOUSE NO.113, SNEH NAGAR,

HOSHANGABAD ROAD,

BHOPAL (M.P.)                                                                                                …          COMPLAINANT.

 

Versus

                 

1. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.

    THROUGH ITS MANAGER,

     4TH FLOOR DESTINATION,

     NEAR SHOPPERS STOP,

     MG ROAD, GHATKOPAR EAST,

     MUMBAI- MAHARASHTRA-400 089  

 

2. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.

    THROUGH ITS MANAGER,

     1ST FLOOR HIG-10, SERVICE ROAD,

     OPPOSITE PRAGATI PETROL PUMP,

     NO.6 LOCALITY, SHIVAJI NAGAR,

     BHOPAL (M.P.) 462 016                                                                         …         OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR   :  PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY                               :  MEMBER

            HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                         :  MEMBER

 

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Alankar Soni, learned counsel for the complainant.

           Ms. Akansha Tiwari appears for Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

          

                                                   

                                                            O R D E R

                             (Passed On 31.05.2023)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr. Monika Malik, Member:

 

                   This complaint under Section 17 (1) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘Act’) is filed by the complainant alleging

-2-

deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties for not giving the insurance claim of his vehicle, which met with an accident.

2.                Briefly put, facts of the case are that the complainant, who is a resident of Bhopal and is owner of second hand Mercedez Benz C220 CDI car bearing registration number MH-03 BJ-1819, which he had purchased from the previous owner after availing financial assistance from the ICICI Bank for a sum of Rs.16,00,000/-. He was paying regular Equated Monthly Instalments (EMIs) of Rs.36,405/- per month in aforesaid regard.  The subject vehicle was insured with the opposite party no.1 vide policy no.OG-16-1907-1801-00003844 w.e.f. 17.09.2015 to 16.09.2016. It is submitted that the subject vehicle was transferred in his name on 28.04.2016.  On 30.04.2016 i.e. just after a day of the transfer, the said vehicle met with an accident at Misrod while he was returning to Bhopal along with two other persons.  The complainant was severely injured in the accident and he along with other passengers was rushed to the hospital for treatment. Thereafter he was shifted to Suyash Hospital, Indore for specialized treatment, where he was hospitalized for two weeks.  The complainant underwent multiple surgeries and after discharge he was advised complete bed rest for another 30 days. Due to severity and timing of the accident, the complainant and his family members could not request the opposite parties/insurance company

 

-3-

to transfer the insurance policy in his name and he was not in a position to file claim immediately after the accident. After recovery, he contacted the opposite party no.2 for transfer of insurance policy in his name and also for filing the claim.  He was however advised by the staff of the opposite party no.2 that the policy could not be transferred in his name now and therefore he should file the claim in the name of the previous owner. The

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top