BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE Vs. ABDUL AZIZ SHIEKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal preferred by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance (for brevity Insurance Company) is directed against award dated 11.05.2011 rendered by the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kashmir on the complaint filed by respondent no.1. The State Commission has allowed the claim of the consumer - Abdul Aziz Shiekh, holding that there was no substance in the stand of the appellant -Insurance Company that the driving licence of the consumer was fake. The Commission has further found that the investigator appointed by the appellant -Insurance Company, namely, Shri Irfan Rashid Bhat was not even produced as a witness to support the aforesaid stand. It has been found that the claim of the consumer was genuine and the conduct of the appellant -Insurance Company amounted to deficiency in service. The Commission has directed the appellant - Insurance Company to indemnify the consumer to the extent of Rs. 4,11,.275/ - which is the amount assessed by the surveyor, Mr. Mir Fayaz Ahmad vide his report dated 28.07.2008. The consumer has also been held entitled to interest on the aforesaid amount at the rate of 8% per annum after two months from 28.07.2008 till the final payment is made along with litigation expenses which have been quantified at Rs. 5000/ - . The appellant -Insurance Company has also been directed to route the payment of the awarded amount through the financer, namely, J&K Bank -respondent no.2, so that the amount due on account of loan could also be adjusted.

(2.) WE have heard Mr. Tariq Ahmad, learned counsel for the appellant -Insurance Company. The only contention raised by the learned counsel is that there was some settlement between the Insurance Company and the consumer during the pendency of the complaint before the Commission. He has made an attempt to substantiate the aforesaid plea by showing us some documents of the year 2010. However, we are unable to appreciate the aforesaid contention because the aforesaid plea was available to the appellant -Insurance Company before the Commission as the alleged settlement is stated to have been concluded in the year 2010 and the award was made on 11.05.2011. Had there been any such settlement between the parties then it could have been produced before the Commission. It appears that the appellant -Insurance Company took a chance and allowed the adjudication of the complaint so that it may rely upon settlement of 2010 if complaint is decided against them. After having lost before the Commission the aforesaid plea has now been set up, which cannot be appreciated. We have seen that various insurance companies show scant regard to the settlement proposal and capitalise on the busy schedule of the Commissions and various forums. This is depricable.