State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. ... vs Jaivati Chauhan on 28 July, 2025
FA/148/2020 M/S BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD VS. JAIVATI CHAUHAN D.O.D.: 28.07.2025
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 08.12.2020
Date of Hearing: 26.03.2025
Date of Decision: 28.07.2025
FIRST APPEAL NO. 148/2020
IN THE MATTER OF
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
THROUGH ITS MANAGER, LEGAL,
BLOCK NO.4, 7TH FLOOR, DLF TOWER 15,
SHIVAJI MARG, NEW DELHI- 110015
(Through: Mr. Amit Kumar Maihan Advocate)
...Appellant
VERSUS
JAIVATI CHAUHAN
W/O LATE SHIV KUMAR CHAUHAN,
R/O H.NO. 94, DHAKKA VILLAGE
MUKHERJEE NAGAR, KINGSWAY CAMP
DELHI- 110054.
(Through: Mr. Jeet Kumar, Advocate)
...Respondent
ALLOWED PAGE 1 OF 11
FA/148/2020 M/S BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD VS. JAIVATI CHAUHAN D.O.D.: 28.07.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: Mr. Rakesh Kumar (Enrl. No. D/2756/10, Ph. No.
[email protected]), Mr. 8368274447, email id
Amit Kumar Maihan (Enrl. No. D/604/2002, Ph. No.
9871897844, email id - [email protected]), Mr.
Mohit (Enrl. No. D/3251/18, Ph. No. 9716618827, email id
[email protected]) and Ms. Binny Sethi, (Enrl.
No. Email: D/40/2025, Mobile: 9968017751,
[email protected]), counsel for the appellant.
None for respondent
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under :
"1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OP under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the husband of the complainant purchased vehicle Maruti model Swift VDI BS4 M bearing Registration no. DL-5CK-5477, chassis no.MA3FHEB1S00532484 & engine no. D1342248342 and the above said car was insured with OP bearing policy no. OG-16-9906-1801-0005-4936 valid from 29.10.2015 to 28.10.2016 (mid- night) (period wrongly mentioned as 29.10.2014 to 28.10.2015 in the complaint) and the insurance was in the name of the husband of the complainant and the deceased husband of the complainant had made the complainant Mrs. Jaivati Chauhan as nominee in the policy. The complainant further alleged that the husband of the complainant expired on 02.03.2015 and after the death of her husband, the complainant has been regularly paying the premium of the policy and OP renewed the insurance of the said vehicle on 29.10.2015. On 06.12.2015, the said car of the complainant was stolen and the complainant immediately lodged the theft report in Mukherjee Nagar Police Station vide FIR No. 021642 u/s 379 IPC. Thereafter, Court of ALLOWED PAGE 2 OF 11 FA/148/2020 M/S BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD VS. JAIVATI CHAUHAN D.O.D.: 28.07.2025 ACMM-01, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi passed an order on 17.02.2016 stating that the final report submitted by SHO, P.S. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi "the theft vehicle as untraced is acceptable by Court". The complainant informed the insurance company vide letter dated 06.01.2016 about the theft of the vehicle and OP sent a reply dated 04.02.2016 and the contents in the reply dated 04.02.2016 that "in the event of the death of the sole insured, this policy will not immediately lapse but will remain valid for a period of 3 months from the date of the death of insured until the expiry of the policy whichever is earlier and during the said period, legal heirs of the insured to whom the custody of the motor vehicle passes may apply to have this policy transferred to his/her/their names or obtain a new insurance policy for the motor vehicle." The complainant further alleged that the above said clause is not applicable upon the complainant as per the terms & conditions of the insurance policy, being not a part of insurance policy of insured vehicle and the clause in question has no relevance with the issued insurance policy and hence the complainant is legally entitled to recover the insured amount from OP against the theft of the vehicle and after the compliance of all the directions of the insurance company, the complainant failed to get the insured amount of the stolen vehicle. Thereafter, the complainant contacted OP several times for the payment of an amount of Rs.4,55,000/- as insurance claim of the vehicle but OP always avoided the complainant by assigning one reason or the other and miserably failed and neglected to pay the insured amount inspite of repeated requests and demands of the complainant. The complainant further alleged that the complainant sent legal notice dated 18.04.2016 through her Counsel to OP by Regd. A.D. but OP neither replied the same nor complied with it and the same has caused great mental tension pain, agony, harassment, inconvenience and loss to the complainant which clearly shows the deficiency in service on the part of OP.
ALLOWED PAGE 3 OF 11 FA/148/2020 M/S BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD VS. JAIVATI CHAUHAN D.O.D.: 28.07.2025
2. On these allegations the complainant filed the complaint praying for direction to OP to pay/refund the insured amount of Rs.4,55,000/- alongwith interest @ 24 % p.a from the date of theft of the said vehicle i.e. 06.12.2015 as well as compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for damages towards causing mental, physical pain, agony and harassment and has also sought Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation alongwith interest @ 18 % p.a. on the aforesaid claimed amount from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization.
3.OP has been contesting the case and filed reply and submitted that neither insurance policy nor registration certificate is in the name of the complainant hence the complainant is not a consumer of OP and the complainant has not impleaded HDFC Bank, as the insured car was financed by HDFC Bank. OP further submitted that after the death of the insured, the loan account should have been transferred by the complainant in her own name and the insured in the policy i.e. Shiv Kumar Chauhan was the registered owner of the vehicle who expired on 02.03.2015 whereas neither insurance policy nor registration of the vehicle was got transferred in favour of the legal heirs and after the reported theft, fact has come to the notice of OP and OP bound by the terms & conditions of the policy contract rejected the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 04.02.2016. OP further submitted that the claim of the complainant has been denied being in the violation of vital terms & conditions and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
4. The complainant filed rejoinder and denied the contentions of OP The complainant submitted in its rejoinder that the complainant has got insured the vehicle from OP and the HDFC Bank has no relation with the consumer dispute between the complainant and OP and hence the question does not arise to implead HDFC Bank in the complaint. The complainant further submitted that the condition no.9 of the ALLOWED PAGE 4 OF 11 FA/148/2020 M/S BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD VS. JAIVATI CHAUHAN D.O.D.: 28.07.2025 terms & conditions as stated vide letter dated 04.02.2016 of OP has no relevance with the issued insurance policy and also not a part of the insurance policy of the insured vehicle.
5. In order to prove her case, the complainant filed her affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant placed on record copy of Private Car Package Policy Schedule vide policy no OG-16-9906-1801-00054936 issued by OP, copy of FIR no.021642 dated 06.12.2015, copy of death certificate of her husband, copy of her ration card, copy of the voter ID card of her husband, copy of R.C., copy of the aadhar card of her husband, copy of her aadhar card, copy of premium receipt no.9906- 00669003 dated 16.10.2015 of Rs.13,892/-, copy of repudiation letter dated 04.02.2016, copy of order dated 17.02.2016 passed by ACMM-01, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, copy of Transcript Proposal for Private Car-Package policy with copy of terms & conditions of the policy issued by OP, copy of policy details and copy of legal notice dated 18,04.2016 sent by the complainant through her Counsel to OP by speed post alongwith postal receipts.
6. On the other hand, Sh. Dushyant K. Meens, Legal Officer of OP filed his affidavit in evidence which is on the basis of the reply of OP. OP also filed copy of Private Car Package Policy Schedule, copy Private Car Package Policy, copy of Motor Insurance Claim Form, copy of letter dated 08.12.2015, copy of investigator report dated 24.12.2015 issued by Ashok Gosai, Investigator for Motor Theft, Investigation and copies of repudiation letters dated 30.12.2015 & 04.02.2016. OP has also filed written arguments."
2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 18.03.2020, whereby it held as under:
"7. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence of both the parties and documents placed on record by the parties. The case of the ALLOWED PAGE 5 OF 11 FA/148/2020 M/S BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD VS. JAIVATI CHAUHAN D.O.D.: 28.07.2025 complainant has remained consistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant.
8. The investigator namely Sh. Ashok Gosai appointed by OP in his report dated 24.12.2015 clearly stated that he visited P.S. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi and met the investigating officer of the police case and also visited the premises of the complainant and in his report has not disputed the factum of theft of the vehicle and has further stated that there is no delay and IDV of the vehicle was Rs.4,55,578/- as per the policy. He further stated that the husband of the complainant died on 02.03.2015 and the vehicle was registered in the name of her husband and the policy was also in the name of her husband. Though her husband died on 02.03.2015 but the complainant ant has renewed the insurance policy and has regularly paid EMIs to HDFC Bank the financer. He further reported that both the keys of the vehicle and original R.C. of the vehicle lost alongwith the vehicle. However, OP has not disputed the insurance policy in respect of the vehicle of the complainant and IDV of the vehicle i.e. Rs.4,55,578/-. OP has also not disputed the factum of theft of the vehicle. It is hard to believe that the complainant will not provide the required documents to the investigator of OP. Moreover, during the proceedings of the case, the complainant has produced before the Forum the 2 keys of the lost vehicle and filed photographs of the keys and it is not expected that the complainant would not have provided the keys of the vehicle to the surveyor if the surveyor might have demanded the keys from the complainant. It is shows that OP has taken a false and bogus defence and report of surveyor cannot be believed. Thus, the exclusion clause is not attracted and OP ought not to have repudiated the claim of the complainant. Accordingly, OP is held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
9. Accordingly, OP is directed as under:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.4,55,578/-
being the IDV of the vehicle and the complainant to execute ALLOWED PAGE 6 OF 11 FA/148/2020 M/S BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD VS. JAIVATI CHAUHAN D.O.D.: 28.07.2025 transfer papers in the name of OP and to return the keys of the said vehicle to OP.
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.
iv) The above amount shall be paid by OP to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 1'0% per annum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of payment. If OP fails to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986."
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order of the District Commission, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal contending that the impugned order is perverse as the District Commission did not even touch on the contentions raised by the Appellant and went on to direct the Appellant to make the payment. Secondly, it is submitted that the neither the Insurance Policy or the Registration Certificate is in the name of the Respondent nor the Respondent applied for change in the insurance policy or the RC and no new policy was purchased. Therefore, it is submitted that the Respondent is a not a consumer of the Appellant. Thirdly, it is submitted that the Respondent acted in contravention of clause 8 & 9 of the policy and therefore, the Appellant rightly rejected the claim of the Respondent. Lastly, it is submitted that the District Commission made a glaring error in so much so that the District Commission failed to record any finding on the aforementioned facts and dealt with issues which were not issues at all. Pressing the aforesaid submissions, the Appellant has prayed that the impugned order be set aside.
ALLOWED PAGE 7 OF 11 FA/148/2020 M/S BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD VS. JAIVATI CHAUHAN D.O.D.: 28.07.2025
4. The Respondent has filed the reply to the present appeal and has submitted therein that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the District Commission. It is further submitted that the Appellant was informed about the theft of the vehicle vide letter dated 06.01.2016 and the Appellant sent false and frivolous reply dated 04.02.2016. The respondent contacted Appellant times for obtaining the claim amount of the vehicle but the Appellant always avoided Respondent by assigning one reason or the other. Lastly, it is submitted that the Respondent sent legal notice to the Appellant but the Appellant did not reply to the same. Pressing the aforesaid submissions, the Respondent has prayed that the present appeal be dismissed with exemplary costs.
5. The Parties have filed their brief written arguments further emphasizing their contentions.
6. We have perused the material available on record and heard the counsel for the Appellant.
7. The only issue that falls for our consideration is whether there is any privity of contract between the Appellant and the Respondent and whether the Appellant is liable for deficiency in service.
8. A perusal of the record reflects that the insured in the Policy i.e. Shiv Kumar Chauhan, was the registered owner of the vehicle who had expired on 16.03.2015. It is further clear from the record that neither the insurance policy nor registration certificate of the vehicle was transferred in favour of the legal heirs of the insured. In this regard, we deem it appropriate to refer to Clause 9 of the policy reproduced hereunder as :
"9. In the event of the death of the sole insured, this will not immediately lapse but will remain valid for a period of three months from the date of death of insured or until the expiry of this policy (whichever is earlier). During the said period legal heirs of the insured to whom the custody and use of the Motor Vehicle passes may apply to have this Policy transferred to his / her / their ALLOWED PAGE 8 OF 11 FA/148/2020 M/S BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD VS. JAIVATI CHAUHAN D.O.D.: 28.07.2025 names or obtain a new Insurance policy for the Motor Vehicle. ..."
9. A perusal of the aforesaid clause makes it clear that in the event of the death of the Insured, the policy shall stand lapsed after 3 months from the date of the death of the insured. It is pertinent to note here that as per the aforesaid clause, in such an event, the legal heirs of the deceased-insured who have the custody of the vehicle shall get the policy transferred to his/her name or obtain a new policy within three months. It is clear from the record that the Respondent neither got the policy transferred in her name nor was any new policy purchased for the vehicle in question, even after the expiry of eight months from the date of death of the insured i.e. 16.03.2015. Therefore, it is clear that the policy lapsed on 16.06.2015 and there exists no privity of contract between the Appellant and the Respondent, thus, the Respondent cannot be said to be a consumer of the Appellant.
10. Our view is further fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in RP No. 2007 of 2017 titled Manish Saini Vs NIC, decided on 14.08.2018, wherein the Hon'ble National Commission while deciding on a similar issue, held as under :
"4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. From the perusal of clause 9 of the policy, it is apparent that it was the duty of the complainants to get the policy transferred within three months in the event of death of sole insured, which admittedly was not done. No steps were taken for the transfer of the policy in the name of the legal heirs even before the policy lapsed. The petitioner has, therefore, failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the policy and State Commission has rightly held in this regard that due to this failure, petitioners are not entitled to any claim under the expired ALLOWED PAGE 9 OF 11 FA/148/2020 M/S BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD VS. JAIVATI CHAUHAN D.O.D.: 28.07.2025 policy. State Commission has rightly relied upon the judgments of this Commission in the matters titled New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Ashok Kumar (2013) 2 CPR (NC) 78, United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Bundela Singh Rajput since deceased LRs and others 2016 (1) CPR (NC) 377 and HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Balraj Singh 2015 (4) CPR (NC) 315. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order which may call for interference in this revision petition. Revision Petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed"
11. Similar view as above has been taken by the Hon'ble National Commission in a catena of other judgments viz. i) New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Ashok Kumar (2013) 2 CPR (NC) 78, ii) United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Bundela Singh Rajput (since deceased) LRs and others 2016 (1) CPR (NC) 377, and iii) HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Balraj Singh 2015 (4) CPR (NC) 315.
12. A perusal of the decision in Manish Saini (supra), involving similar factual matrix, reflects, that it is the duty of the Respondent/Complainant to get the policy transferred within three months in the event of death of sole insured, which admittedly was not done in the present case. No steps were taken for the transfer of the policy in the name of the legal heirs even before the policy lapsed. The Respondent has, thus, failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the policy. Due to this failure, the Respondent is not entitled to raise a claim under an expired policy. Therefore, no deficiency in service can be carved out on part of the Appellant.
ALLOWED PAGE 10 OF 11 FA/148/2020 M/S BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD VS. JAIVATI CHAUHAN D.O.D.: 28.07.2025
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present Appeal stands allowed and the order dated 18.03.2020 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shalimar Bagh is set aside.
14. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
15. The Judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
16. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced On:
28.07.2025 L.R.-G.P.K ALLOWED PAGE 11 OF 11