Haryana

Ambala

CC/425/2018

Rita Walia - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Egro Gen Inss Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

A.K. Rathore

04 Mar 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case no.  :  425 of 2018

                                                          Date of Institution    :  21.12.2018

                                                          Date of decision       :  04.03.2020

 

Rita Walia wife of Shri Virender Mohan, resident of House No.214/4, Ahluwalia Street, Ward No.4, Naraingarh, District, Ambala.

    ……. Complainant.

          Vs.

1. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd., Registered & Corporate Office: Ist floor, HDFC House, 165-166, backbay Reclamation H.T. Parekh Marg, Mumbai-400020 having one of its  branch at Prem Nagar, Ambala City through its authorized representative.
2. Sumit-S.B. Insurance Broker Pvt. Ltd., Naraingarh, District Ambala, 09896035656.

 .…. Opposite Parties.

 

 

Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

 

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President,                                             

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

                  

Present:       Shri A.K. Rathore, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                   Shri Mohinder Bindal, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1.

                   Defence of OP No.2 already struck of vide order dated                      29.05.2019.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To release the balance claim amount of Rs.69,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the due date till its realization, to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.
3. To pay litigation charges.
382.  

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

 

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant got insured her car Swift Dzire bearing registration No.HR-03C-0015 from the OP vide insurance policy No.2311201718839100000 for the period from 23.03.2017 to 22.03.2018. During the insurance period, the vehicle of the complainant was stolen in the at night, on 13.10.2017. In this regard FIR No.1442 of 15.10.2017, under Section 379 of IPC was registered with the police of P.S. Indirapuram, District Gaziabad (U.P.) and the information was given to the OP within 24 hours after lodging the FIR.  OP No.1 had appointed a surveyor/investigator namely Shri Shivam Arora, to investigate the matter. All the required documents were supplied to the investigator. After due verification and investigation and after negotiation the OP No.1 agreed to pay Rs.3,49,000/- vide claim dated 02.11.2017, but the OP No.1 issued a bank draft No.9179 of Rs.2,80,000/- in favour of Union Bank of India against loan Account No.620206520000080. Thereafter, a deed of Suborgation-cum-indemnity was got effected on 18.05.2018, between the OPs and the complainant. Complainant contacted the OPs several times to release the balance amount of Rs.69,000/- in favour of complainant, but they always put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Complainant also served a legal notice dated 02.06.2018, upon OPs, but of no avail. By not paying the remaining amount of Rs.69,000/-, OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.  

2.               Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written version, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, not coming to this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands, suppression of true and material facts, no territorial jurisdiction, estoppel, no cause of action.  On merits, it is stated that the insurance policy was issued subject to certain terms and conditions and the insured was under legal obligation and bound to follow them without any lapse or failure. On receipt of the intimation on 02.11.2017, about the theft of her vehicle bearing registration No.HR03-C-0015, which took place on the intervening night of 13/14.10.2017, was duly entertained in due course without going into the aspect of its maintainability, due to late intimation. An investigator of M/s Mehar Investigators was immediately deputed to investigate the matter and to give his fact finding report regarding theft of the vehicle No.HR-03C-0015. After meeting the complainant as well as other related person and after making detailed investigation on the issue, the investigator of M/s Mehar Investigators, submitted its detailed report dated 12.04.2018. Although the claim of the complainant was legally liable to be repudiated, because there was violation of condition No.1 of the Insurance Policy as there was a delay of 20 days in intimating the insurance company and 2 days in intimating to the police, from the date of occurrence of the incident. However, the Insurance Company by taking a lenient view, asked the complainant to complete the required formalities like subrogation deed, indemnity bond and transfer of car in favour of the company. The complainant neither had given any satisfactory explanation about the delay, nor had submitted the requisite documents with the insurance company, as such the competent authority released 80% of the insured amount as per claim on non standard basis. The complainant was immediately informed about the release of payment of Rs.2,80,000/- in the loan account of the complainant maintained with Union Bank of India. But, now after receiving the said claim amount and without completing the requisite formalities and with some evil motive, the complainant adopted this illegal way to put undue pressure upon the OP No.1, and filed this frivolous complaint by exploiting the process of law. Complainant herself is responsible for the whole situation and sequence of events and cannot blame the OP No.1 for anything.  As such, the OP No.1 has not committed any deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint filed against it.

                  Upon notice OP No.2 appeared in person on 18.03.2019, and thereafter without filing written version, he failed to turn up and his defence was stuck of vide order dated 29.05.2019.   

3.                Complainant along with her counsel tendered her affidavit as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-4 and closed her evidence. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Shri Pankaj Kumar, Authorized Signatory, HDFC ERGO, General Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office Noida as Annexure OP1-A alongwith documents as Annexure OP1 to OP5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OP No.1.

4.                We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case.

5.                Admittedly, the car in question was duly insured with the OP No.1 for an IDV of Rs.3,50,000/- for the period from 23.03.2017 to 22.03.2018 vide policy document, Annexure C-4/OP-4. From the FIR dated 15.10.2017, Annexure OP-3, it is evident that the car in question got stolen on 13.10.2017. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant has pleaded that on lodging of the claim by the complainant, the OP No.1 asked her  to complete certain formalities. Accordingly, complainant furnished subrogation deed, indemnity bond and transfer the car in favour of the company, but OP No.1 instead of paying him the claim amount of Rs.3,49,000/- had only released Rs.2,80,000/- on non-standard basis. By paying Rs.69,000/- less than the claim amount, the OPs have committed deficiency in service. The Ld. counsel for the OP No.1 has pleaded that there was delay of two days in lodging the FIR with the police and delay of 20 days in intimating the insurance company from the date of the occurrence of the incident and violation of condition No.1 of the Insurance Policy, despite of that the OP No.1 by taking a lenient view, get ready to release the claim amount on completion of certain formalities by the complainant like furnishing of subrogation deed, indemnity bond and to transfer the car in favour of the company by the complainant. But complainant did not complete the requisite formalities and the OP No.1 had released 80% of the claim amount on non-standard basis and transferred the amount of Rs.2,80,000/- in the loan account of the complainant maintained with Union Bank of India. As such, OP No.1 had not committed any deficiency in service. The complainant has averred that she had furnished subrogation-cum-indemnity certificate with the OPs, but in this regard no documentary evidence has been placed on record by the complainant. In order to get the remaining claim amount of Rs.69,000/- the complainant is required to complete all the requisite formalities referred to above. On completion of requisite formalities by the complainant, the OP No.1 is liable to release the remaining claim amount of Rs.69,000/- in favour of the complainant. So far as the complaint filed against OP No.2 is concerned, it deserves dismissal, because the claim amount has to be paid by the insurance company and not by the broker. Even, otherwise neither any specific allegation has been leveled by the complainant against OP No.2, nor it has been proved.

6.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint against the OP No.2 and dispose of the same against the OP No.1 with a direction to release the remaining claim amount of Rs.69,000/- to the complainant, on completion of requisite formalities by her. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :04.03.2020.

 

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

           Member                              Member                          President