Delhi

North East

CC/340/2016

ABHISHEK GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

H.D.F.C ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

04 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 340/16

 

In the matter of:

 

		Abhishek Gupta S/o Shri Subhash Gupta Currently R/o S-40, Ist Floor, Commercial Market, DLF Ankur Vihar, Loni, Gaziabad-201102		Complainant
		Versus
		HDFC ERGO (Branch Office) General Insurance Co. Ltd. 14-Ambadeep Building, Ground Floor Connaught Palace, New Delhi 110001              HDFC ERGO,( corporate office) General insurance Co. Ltd, Ist Floor, 165-1666, Backbay Reclamation, K.T. Parekh Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020		Opposite Party No.1           Opposite Party No.2
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF ORDER:		13.12.2016 13.07.2022 04.08.2022

 

                 CORAM:

                 Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

                 Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

ORDER

                    Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of  the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

       Case of the Complainant

1. The Facts of the complaint is that the Complainant is a motor bike owner bearing No. DL 8S AS 0332.  It is alleged by the Complainant that the motor bike was insured with Opposite Party vide policy no 231220100 7711800000 and the policy was valid up to 09 march 2016 having Rs.19119/- as the insurance amount of the vehicle in question. It is alleged by the Complainant that the above vehicle was stolen on 11.06.15. The Complainant lodged the FIR on 25.06.15 bearing entry no. 031 and case crime no. 0905.

            It is also alleged by the Complainant that the father of the Complainant filed the claim with Opposite Party/insurance company vide claim no. 230015036498. The Complainant came to know on 10.02.16 that the claim was rejected with the reason that there was a delay of 16 days in reporting the claim i.e.  loss date of 10.06.15 and the intimation was given to insurer on 26.06.15 and also with a delay of 15 days in lodging the FIR.

            It is also alleged by the father of the Complainant reported the incident of theft bike on the same day in police authority vide diary no. 905/15 and having no delay on the part of him.

It is alleged by the Complainant that the Opposite Party insurance company failed to take into consideration that the police report was made on the very same day of theft. Hence there has been unjustified delay on the part of Opposite Party insurance company in dealing with the claim which the deficiency on the part of Opposite Party. It is alleged by the Complainant that the Opposite Party insurance company is liable to pay the insured amount with 18 % p.a. interest. The Complainant has prayed for grant of insured amount of the stolen motor cycle, compensation on ground of harassment as Rs.50000/- and cost of litigation along with interest.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. Opposite Party contested the case and filed written statement. It is alleged that complaint of the Complainant is not maintainable as the Complainant has concealed the material facts. It is submitted that the claim was rejected as there was delay on the part of Complainant in giving intimation to the insurance company and also both the case of the stolen bike were not provided to the insurance company by the Complainant. However, it is admitted that bike of the Complainant was insured with the Opposite Party and the insurance policy was valid on       the date of incident. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.     Rejoinder to the Written Statement of Opposite Party
3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein he has denied the preliminary objection raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated his averments made in the complaint. 

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5.  In order to prove its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Shri Pankaj Kumar S/o Shri J.P Mahto, Legal Manager at HDFC ERGO General Ins. Co. Ltd. Having office at Stellar IT Park, C-25, Sector-62, Noida, UP wherein the averments made in the written statement have been affirmed.

 Arguments and conclusions

6.  We have heard the Complainant and Learned counsel for the Opposite parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties.

      The case of the Complainant is that his bike which was insured by the Opposite Party No-1 was stolen on 11.06.15. It is his case that insurance policy was valid on the date of theft of the bike and the Opposite Party has wrongly rejected his claim. The case of the Opposite Party is that intimation of the theft of the bike was not given by the Complainant to it within the statutory period and on this ground the claim was rejected.

It is an admitted fact that on the date of the theft the bike of the Complainant was having a valid insurance policy issued by Opposite Party No-1. On the date of theft the father of the Complainant had given a complaint to the in charge of Police Post of DLF Ankur Vihar, Loni, Gaziabad regarding the theft of the bike. This report was received by the police and copy of the same has been annexed with the file.  Thereafter, FIR was also lodged with the policy on 25.06.15. The Opposite Party has now disputed the fact that the bike of the Complainant was stolen. Therefore, under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Opposite Party has arbitrarily rejected the claim of the Complainant.

In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. It is ordered that

1. Opposite Party No-1 shall pay an amount of Rs.19,119/- i.e. the insured value of the stolen bike of the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till the recovery of this amount.
2. Compensation of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid by the Opposite Party No-1 to the Complainant on the account of mental harassment and litigation charges. This amount shall carry an interest of@ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till its recovery.  

   7.   Order announced on 04.08.2022.

 Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President