[ad_1]
Case Title: Sri Swapnashish Panna vs The Head of the Department Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd
Summary
The District Commission in Odisha has ordered Bajaj Allianz General Insurance to provide compensation to a complainant for damages incurred in an unintentional fire in his vehicle. The insurance company failed to prove that the complainant had tampered with the vehicle’s electrical system and caused the complainant mental anguish by delaying the settlement of the claim.
The complainant, Swapnashish Panna, claimed the fire occurred by chance and that he had collaborated extensively with the insurance company. The District Commission ruled that the fire was unintentional and not due to the complainant’s negligence. The court also found the surveyor’s assessment of compensation arbitrary and that the complainant was entitled to a greater amount of compensation. The District Commission awarded the complainant Rs. 5,80,258 plus 9% annual interest, and ordered the insurance company to submit Rs. 40,000 for mental anguish and Rs. 5,000 for litigation costs.
About the case
In a recent ruling, the Bolangir (Odisha) bench of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rabindra Kumar Tripathy (Presiding Member) and Jyotshna Rani Mishra (Member) ordered Bajaj Allianz General Insurance (“Insurance Company”) to provide compensation to the complainant for the damages incurred as a result of the unintentional fire that broke out in his insured vehicle while it was parked in a shopping mall. The insurance company not only failed to establish that the complainant had tampered with the vehicle’s electrical system, but it also caused the complainant mental anguish by delaying the settlement of the claim.
A Few Facts: The Maruti Suzuki Dzire VXI that “Complainant” Swapnashish Panna acquired on September 11, 2020, via a financing arrangement with Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd., is the vehicle in question. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. (“Insurance Company”) provided coverage for the vehicle. The insurance policy remained in effect between September 11, 2021 and September 10, 2022. The vehicle in question took fire and consumed its entire contents on March 15, 2022, while the complainant was shopping at a mall in Sambalpur. For the damages, the complainant lodged a claim with the insurance company.
On June 22, 2022, the insurance company issued a letter in which it denied the claim. The complainant maintained that the fire occurred by chance and was not attributable to any unlawful conduct. He asserted that he had collaborated extensively with the insurance company in relation to the resolution of the claim; however, the insurance company had unjustifiably denied the claim. As a consequence, the individual who lodged the complaint did so with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bolangir, known as the “District Commission”). The insurance company refuted the accusations and put forth the case that unauthorized alterations to the electrical system of the vehicle were the cause of the fire. As supporting documentation, they cited the surveyor’s evaluation and the technical report from the manufacturer. They maintained that the claim had been properly rejected and that the complainant was not entitled to the compensation that had been claimed.
In the Commission’s Observations: The District Commission determined that the fire that erupted in the vehicle of the complainant was unintentional and not the result of his negligence. Furthermore, the District Commission determined that the insurance company had not provided sufficient evidence to support their claim that the complainant tampered with the vehicle’s electrical system. Additionally, the court determined that the surveyor’s assessment of compensation was arbitrary and that the complainant was worthy of a greater amount of compensation.
Additionally, the District Commission considered the insurance company’s prolonged settlement of the claim, which had resulted in the complainant experiencing severe psychological distress. Following a thorough evaluation of the evidence and adherence to principles of justice, the District Commission rendered a verdict in favor of the complainant. Since the order was issued, the insurance company was ordered to pay him Rs. 5,80,258 plus 9% annual interest. In addition, they were required to submit Rs. 40,000 within one month as compensation for mental anguish and Rs. 5,000 for litigation costs.
[ad_2]
Source link
