Haryana

Kaithal

403/19

Sandeep Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Egro Gen Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Satish Garg

23 Feb 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No. 403 of 2019.

                                                               Date of institution:   02.12.2019.

                                                               Date of decision:      23.02.2024

 

Sandeep Goyal s/o Shri Vinod Goyal, r/o H.No.91/1, Ward No.13, near Delhi School, VPO Kalayat, District Kaithal.

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                  Versus

 

1. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd., Corresponding office: Stellar IT Park, Tower-1, 5^th Floor, C-25, Sector-62, Noida-201301, Uttar Pradesh.
2. HDFC Bank Ltd., Branch Kalayat, District Kaithal, through its Branch Manager.

...Opposite Parties.

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

 

CORAM:   SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                    SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SHRI SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Shri Satish Garg, Advocate for the complainant.   

                   Shri Sudeep Malik, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1.

                   Opposite Party No.2 ex-parte.

                  

ORDER  -  NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT:

        Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), against the OPs.

2.                In the complaint, complainant alleged that he is registered owner of truck bearing Registration No.HR-39C-5187 which was insured by OPs, vide policy No.2315202158033600000 for the period from 31.03.2018 to 30.03.2019. That on 03.08.2018, the said truck was met with an accident at P.S. Surpaliya, District Nagaur (Rajasthan) and badly damaged and a DDR No.24 dated 04.08.2018 was registered in this regard at P.S. Surpaliya. That after the said accident, he immediately intimated to the OPs, who deputed one surveyor, who inspected the damaged truck. That with the permission of said surveyor, he repaired the said truck after paying Rs.1,41,240/- and intimated to the said surveyor after submitting the requisite documents, but till date, no claim amount has been paid by the OPs. That lastly he sent a legal notice on 27.11.2018 through his counsel, but all in vain. The above act of OPs, of not paying his genuine claim, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part, due to which, he suffered huge physical harassment, mental agony as well as financial loss, constraining him, to file the present complaint, against the OPs, before this Commission.

3.             Upon notice of complaint, initially both the OPs failed to appear before this Commission, on the date fixed, despite receipt of notice from this Commission and was proceeded against ex-parte, by this Commission, on that date. But later on, OP No.1 moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte order, which was allowed vide order dated 27.09.2022 and ex-parte order dated 08.01.2021 was set aside. Accordingly, OP No.1 filed its written statement.

4.                OP No.1 in its written statement admitting about insured of vehicle in question with OP No.1 for the period from 31.03.2018 to 30.03.2019. It is submitted that the intimation regarding the alleged accident of vehicle was reported to the OP on 04.08.2018, upon which, OP deputed an independent surveyor and loss assessor, who submitted its report and assessed the loss of Rs.42,700/-, as per the repair estimate. After perusal of surveyor report, it came to knowledge of OP that the vehicle was dismantled without waiting for final survey. The insurance company was deprived of and was not provided with an opportunity to assess the loss and the repair, therefore, the surveyor was unable to ascertain the fresh damages nature and extent of loss, hence, OP was unable to process the claim. Further, as per terms of policy, any claim exceed Rs.500/-, firstly required to be intimated to the insurance company for the assessment of the claim before starting any job work/repair for the accidental loss, but the complainant failed to act as such, which resulted into breach of condition of policy, therefore, the claim was closed as “No Claim” and intimated to the complainant, vide letter dated 07.09.2018. Thus, there is no deficiency in service, on the part of OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

5.                To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C19.

6.                On the other hand, OP No.1, in its evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-5.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

8.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant was registered owner of the truck in question, which was insured by OPs. He further argued that on 03.08.2018, the said truck was met with an accident at P.S. Surpaliya, District Nagaur (Rajasthan) and badly damaged and the complainant immediately intimated to the OPs, who deputed one surveyor, who inspected the damaged truck. He further argued that with the permission of said surveyor, the complainant repaired the said truck after paying Rs.1,41,240/- and intimated to the said surveyor, after submitting the requisite documents, but till date, no claim amount has been paid by the OPs, which amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part.

9.                On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 has admitted about insurance of vehicle in question with OP No.1. It is argued that the intimation regarding the alleged accident of vehicle was reported to the OP on 04.08.2018, upon which, OP deputed an independent surveyor and loss assessor, who submitted its report and assessed the loss of Rs.42,700/- as per the repair estimate. He further argued that after perusal of surveyor report, it came to knowledge of OPs that the vehicle was dismantled without waiting for final survey, due to which, the insurance company was deprived of and was not provided with an opportunity to assess the loss and the repair, therefore, the surveyor was unable to ascertain the fresh damages nature and extent of loss. He further argued that further, as per terms of policy, any claim exceed Rs.500/-, firstly required to be intimated to the insurance company for the assessment of the claim before starting any job work/repair for the accidental loss, but the complainant failed to act as such, which resulted into breach of condition of policy, therefore, the claim was closed as “No Claim”, hence, there is no deficiency in service, on the part of OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

10.               It is not disputed between the parties that the complainant was the registered owner of truck bearing Registration No.HR-39C-5187 Annexure C-4 and the said truck was insured with the OPs, for the period from 31.03.2018 to 30.03.2019. On 03.08.2018, the said truck was met with an accident and a DDR No.24 dated 04.08.2018 was registered in this regard at P.S. Surpaliya Annexure C-2.

11.              The complainant lodged the claim with the OPs and the OPs deputed a surveyor, who submitted his report Annexure R-1, assessing the total payable amount to the tune of Rs.42,700/-, but the OPs closed claim of complainant as “No Claim” on the ground that the vehicle was dismantled, by the complainant, without waiting for final survey, due to which, the OPs was deprived of and was not provided with an opportunity to assess the loss and the repair, which is in violation of Clause 4 of Policy “Goods Carrying Vehicle Package Policy-Annual” Annexure R-3. Contrary to it, the complainant has failed to produce any documentary evidence, on the case file, to deny this contentions of the OPs, and in the absence of that, the above contentions of the OPs that the complainant has dismantled the vehicle in question, without waiting for final survey in violation of terms and conditions of the policy in question, has force.

12.              It is admitted fact between the parties that the vehicle in question has been damaged in a roadside accident, due to which, the complainant might have suffered financial loss. In the complaint, complainant demanded the repair charges of Rs.1,41,240/-, but contrary to it, the complainant has produced many bills, issued by different shops more than of Rs.2,80,000/- Annexure C-7 to Annexure C-19 on the case file. A bare perusal of these bills Annexure C-7 to Annexure C-19 shows that most of these bills belong to Khanori Mandi, Punjab, however the accident in question took place in Rajasthan and the vehicle in question has been got surveyed by the surveyor in Sonepat on 14.08.2018, then how the complainant reached in Punjab to repair the vehicle in question, which is not understandable. Moreover, different-different bills have been made for the same item, for example the items mentioned in bill Annexure C-11 are the same item, which is mentioned in bill Annexure C-14, but the amount of those both bills are different i.e. bill Annexure C-11 is for Rs.51800/-, whereas, bill Annexure C-14 is for Rs.56,000/-, which is quite surprising. Moreover, some of these bills are without any date. So, in view of above facts, the bills produced by the complainant as Annexure C-7 to C-11 are doubtful and cannot be taken into consideration.  

13.              As per OPs, the complainant has dismantled the vehicle in question, due to which, the surveyor could not assess the loss to the vehicle in question, but it is admitted fact that the vehicle in question was damaged in the accident took place on 03.08.2018, due to which, the complainant might have suffered financial loss, therefore, the complainant is only liable to receive the amount to Rs.42,700/- on account of Labour Charges, Towing Charges and Cost of parts, as assessed by the surveyor, in his report Annexure R1. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the surveyor is an independent person. So, this report of surveyor Annexure R-1, is taken into consideration, for deciding the compensation amount in the complaint. In this regard, we rely upon a judgment 2(2008) CPJ page 182 (NC), United India Insurance Co. Vs. Maya, wherein, it has been held that a surveyor report should not be dismissed summarily as the surveyor is independent and qualified person under the relevant provisions of Insurance Act, 1938. In view of the report of surveyor, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs.42,700/-, on account of loss suffered by him, due to damage of his vehicle.

14.              In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay the amount of Rs.42,700/-, to the complainant. The OPs are also directed to pay compensation amount of Rs.5,000/- + litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-, to the complainant. The OPs are further directed to make the compliance of this order, within a period of 45 days, from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the total award amount shall carry interest @6% simple per annum, from the date of this order, till its actual realization.

15.              In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as non-compliance of Court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records, after due compliance.        

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:23.02.2024.

                                                                                      (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                      President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.