Aditya Birla Insurance Brokers Limited vs RATHNAMMA

COUNSEL for the parties present. None is present for Respondent No.1/complainant at this stage. Case called for the second time. Arguments heard.

THERE was a delay of 158 days in filing the case before the State Commission. One of the grounds of dismissal of the appeal was the delay. In the interest of justice, we condone the delay subject to payment of Rs.25,000/ - as costs, which will be paid to Smt. Rathnamma through Bank Draft within a period of 45 days from today otherwise, it will carry interest @ 9% till it is paid to the complainant.

MR . Suresh Nagaraj Shetty was the previous owner of the vehicle, in question. Unfortunately, the vehicle met with an accident on 23.09.2010. The estimate of damages of vehicle came to Rs.1,60,009/ -Mrs. Rathnamma, the complainant in this case submitted the claim before the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. - OP No. 1. However, OP No.1 repudiated the claim on the ground that her name did not appear and there was no insurable interest and privity of contract between the complainant and OP -1. On the other hand, the complainant Mrs. Rathnamma, explained that she had submitted the relief documents on 17.04.2010 to M/s Aditya Birla Insurance Company Limited -OP 2, who has been shown as Broker. The relevant portion/endorsement of the Insurance Policy runs as follows: - Agency Code 10029147 Agency Name: ADITIYA BIRLA INSURANCE BROKERS LIMITED Contact No: 0/0 Email -

THE complainant had also requested that her name should be changed in place of the previous owner. She also produced the tabulation sheet, was given by M/s Aditya Birla Insurance Brokers Ltd. It shows the name of the previous owner as Mr. Suresh Nagaraj Shetty. Both the Fora came to the conclusion that the complainant had handed over all the requisite documents to Opposite Party No. 1 - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. through Aditya Birla Insurance Brokers Ltd. OP No.2 for change of her name. However, the needful was not done. Therefore, both the Opposite Parties OPs - 1 and 2 were held liable jointly and severally responsible for the same.

WE have heard the counsel for the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. OP -1. She vehemently argued that Aditya Birla Insurance Brokers Ltd. OP -2/petitioner did not hand over the documents to them. She further submits that Aditya Birla Insurance Brokers are not their agents and they have nothing to do with Aditya Birla Insurance Brokers Ltd.

IN the case filed by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, all these matters were discussed. We made the following observations in Para No. 7 of the said judgment, which is hereby reproduced: - "7. Counsel for the petitioner (OP -1) could not explain why its name appears thereon. It is apparent that the petitioner has made this endorsement in order to pull the wool in the eyes of Law. This policy is in the name of Mr. Suresh Nagaraj Shetty but the aforesaid endorsement appears. This endorsement was made to lead the gullible consumers up the garden path. When the money was accepted by the so -called agent on 17.04.2010, the transfer should have been made within a period of five months. This shows deficiency on the part of the petitioner (OP -1)".

IT is, thus clear that is a matter between the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. and Aditya Birla Insurance Brokers Ltd. inter -se. This Commission is not concerned with their dispute. However, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. is vicariously liable for all the commissions and omissions done by the Aditya Birla Insurance Brokers Ltd. Consequently, we hereby discharge Aditya Birla Insurance Brokers Ltd. and saddle Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. with the entire liability. There lies no rub for the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. to seek redressal for their grievances before the appropriate Forum against Aditya Birla Insurance Brokers Ltd. The matters stand adjudicated. The order of the State Commission stands modified to this extent.