Haryana

Karnal

658/2011

Jasmer Singh S/o Jagmal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC EGRO Gernal Insurance Company Ltd., 2 HDFC EGRO General Insurance Company Ltd., 3 HDFC EGRO Ge - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. S.S. Rana

04 Aug 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.658 of 2011

                                                               Date of instt: 25.10.2011

                                                               Date of decision:16 .09.2015

 

 

Jasmer Singh son of Jagmal Singh r/o village Hanori tehsil Indri district Karnal.

                                                             ……….Complainant.

                             Versus

 

1.HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 237-238, Sector 12, Karnal.

2. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, 6^th Floor, Leela Business Park, Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (East Mumbai).

3.HDFC General Insurance Raman House, H.T.Parekh Marg, 169, Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai 400020.

                                                           ……… Opposite parties.

 

                    Complaint U/s  12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma ………Member.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma…..Member.   

         

 

 Present:       Sh.S.S.Rana Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Sanjiv Vohra Advocate for the Ops.

                  

ORDER:

 

                    This complaint has been filed  by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments  that he got insured his car bearing registration No. HR70-5416  from the Opposite Parties ( in short OPs)  on 16.11.2009 vide policy No. VP00547082000100 .   On 18.11.2009 at about 10.00AM,  he parked his car near Chambers building of the Advocates  Sector 12, Karnal. After attending the courts, when he reached the place where the  car was parked, he was stunned and shocked to see that car was not there. He reported  the matter to the Police Post, Sector 13, Karnal and FIR No.758 dated 18.11.2009 was registered in Police Station, Civil Lines, Karnal. He informed the OPs about the theft of the car.  The car could not be traced  despite best efforts of the police and  ultimately, the police submitted untraced report in the court on 17.8.2010.It has further been alleged that the complainant submitted the untraced report and the  claim to the OPs but the matter was delayed on one pretext or the other and the claim was not paid. In this way, the OPs committed willful deficiency in services.

 

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs who put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and that this forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and to adjudicate the present complaint as complicated questions of law and facts are involved..

 

                   On merits, it has been submitted that at the time of purchasing the insurance policy from the OPs, the complainant had produced the previous cover note No.982917 issued by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Ludhiana, having validity  for the period of  16.11.2008 to 15.11.2009 and on the basis of the same OPs issued the policy of the car in question covering the period from 16.11.2009 to 15.11.2010 without any physical inspection of the car. The claim of the theft of the car was reported to the OPs on 15.2.2010 and thereafter OPs verified the previous cover note No. 982917 from previous insurer and it was found that previous policy document was forged and fake. This act  of the complainant amounted to  suppression of material fact, therefore,  claim of the complainant was made as  “No Claim”   on that ground  and it was conveyed to him vide letter dated  8.02.2011.  The other allegations made in the complaint have not been admitted.

 

3.                In evidence of the complainant his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 have been tendered.

 

4.                In evidence of the OPs, affidavit of  Abhishek  Kushwaha, Assistant Manager, Ex.O1 and documents Ex.O2 to Ex.O6 have been tendered.

 

5.                We have heard the learned counsel  for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

6.                There is no dispute regarding the fact that the  car of the complainant bearing registration No. HR-70-5416  was insured  by the OPs for the period of 16.11.2009 to 15.11.2010.The said car was stolen on 18.11.2009 while the same was parked near Chambers of the Advocates  Sector 12, Karnal. The complainant lodged the first information report, the copy of which is Ex.C3. The car  could not be traced out and ultimately  the police submitted report of untraced, which was accepted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal , vide order dated 17.8.2010, as is evident from the copy of order Ex.C4.

 

7.                The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OPs on the sole ground that cover note No.982917  issued by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Ludhiana having validity from 16.11.2008 to 15.11.2009 produced by the complainant at the time of taking policy from OP for the period   of 16.11.2009 to 15.11.2010 was forged document, but  for that reason the  car of the complainant was not physically checked before issuance of the insurance policy. It has also been pleaded that the complainant had suppressed the material fact regarding previous forged cover note, therefore, his claim was made as  “No Claim”.

 

8.                It is pertinent to point out at the very out set that in the cover note Ex.O3, there is no reference regarding the previous cover note No.982917 if any produced by the complainant for taking policy from the OPs. No other document has been produced by the OPs which may indicate that the complainant had produced such cover note No.982917 issued by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Ludhiana. There is only a report of investigator Ex.O6.  The print/photo copy of the report is so light that first two pages of the same  cannot be deciphered even with the help of magnifying glass. The last page can be read with  great difficulty,  wherein finding  was given that insurance cover note produced by the complainant  was fake and he had  misrepresented the  facts   and  given wrong declaration to the Insurance Company. The said investigator has not been examined as a witness to establish as to who had given him previous cover note and on what basis he gave opinion that said cover note was fake. Moreover, it is not the case of the OPs that complainant was given any benefit in the premium of the policy on the basis of the previous cover note, which was allegedly found fake.  No rule or instruction could be brought to the notice of this Forum by the learned counsel for the OPs that physical inspection of a vehicle is not necessary for issuance of the fresh policy, if cover note of some other Insurance company for previous period is produced at the time of taking policy. While issuing insurance policy, it is the duty of the agent of the insurance company to verify the physical existence and condition of the vehicle to be insured. Thereafter, the Insurance company must verify that  the agent  had issued  cover note after physical inspection of the vehicle and  no fraud was being played with it. The agent who issued the cover note regarding the policy for the period of 16.11.2009 to 15.11.2010 has also not been examined by the OPs to prove that he had not physically inspected the vehicle of the complainant before issuance of the cover note. Moreover, there is nothing on the file from which even an inference may be drawn   that insurance company had taken any action against that agent,  who issued the cover note without physical inspection of the car of the complainant. Under such circumstances, plea of the OP that previous cover note issued by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Ludhiana, produced by the complainant at the time of taking of insurance policy from the OPs was fake, cannot be considered as sufficient to repudiate the claim  of the complainant in respect of the theft of the car which was duly insured by it. Thus, repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the OPs on such baseless ground is not legally justified and the same amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OPs.

 

9.                As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Ops to make the payment of sum assured alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 25.10.2011 till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- for the mental agony and harassment caused to him and  the litigation expenses. The Ops shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:16.09.2015                                                                            

                                                               (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member.

 

 

 

Present:        Sh.S.S.Rana Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Sanjiv Vohra Advocate for the Ops.

 

                   Arguments heard. For orders, the case is adjourned to 16.9.2015.

 

Announced
dated:14.09.2015                                                                            

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member.

 

 

 

Present:        Sh.S.S.Rana Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Sanjiv Vohra Advocate for the Ops.

 

                   Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:16.09.2015                                                                            

                                                               (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member.

 

 

 

 

 

Present:        Sh.S.S.Rana Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Sanjiv Vohra Advocate for the Ops.

 

                   Arguments heard. For orders, the case is adjourned to 16.09.2015.

 

Announced
dated:14.09.2015                                                                            

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member.

 

Present:        Sh.S.S.Rana Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Sanjiv Vohra Advocate for the Ops.

 

                   Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be c unsigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:16.09.2015                                                                            

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member.